When god or the creator of the universe made humans, why was He a He? What happened to the other's that we were made into their image? Why doesn't the Bible ever speak of these things?
God created a male first, then realizing that Adam needed a counterpart then formed the female. It is easy to simply dismiss the Bible as fiction but science has not yet assessed how the universe was formed. They simply say that it was the big bang. Allow me to pose this:
Scientists agree that you cannot create nor destroy matter or energy, only change its form. How did that matter and energy come to be then to form the big bang? That matter and energy had to come from somewhere. Some say it formed from gases being heated then cooled, gas is matter, you cannot create nor destroy matter, where did that gas come from? You can't heat gas without energy, where did your energy come from? It wasn't simply there! How could it simply be there?
Scientists pretend to have it all figured out, but they never address the real beginning. They say a big bang occurred and evolution ensued. That's fine, but where did the making of the big bang come from? You needed matter and energy, but your scientific laws say that it cannot be created nor destroyed.
Good point...I like the fact that God realized he screwed up by not creating man and woman...
But you did not address the rest of my post pest, please continue.
God created Adam and Eve and Eve came from the rib of Adam , why do we all keep discussing the same topics? Christianity? Can't we discuss what a buddhist believes, muslim, a one eyed-one horned flying purple people eater? I didn't mean to impose but there are other topics besides always defending our christianity and our beliefs.. Just my opinion.
you said: God created a male first, then realizing that Adam needed a counterpart then formed the female.
That is not true. Eve was Adam's second wife.
EVERYTHING is ENERGY.
To address your energy statement: correct, and that is why I don't subscribe to the scientific explanation of the creation of the universe. As for the second wife, I believe you're referring to lilith, created from the clay. I think that is mainly from the Alphabet of of Sira, or Ben Sira. There is a lot that is mistaken with that writing including it's attribution to Ben Sira. Be careful.
There is a lot of experts that claim to know everything. Only you can truly decide what you believe. This includes myself. Research what I say before you believe it. I read a lot of scientific material and religious material and draw my own conclusions. I wish to simply only present you with what I know. But be careful basing your philosophies off of the Alphabet as there is still much to learn about it. I hope that you find all of the answers you seek
Be careful of what? Lilith and Adam were created together in thier likeness. Lilith was Adam's equal in everything. If you say that Lilith ws created of clay then so would Adm be created the same. Liilth didn't like Adam telling her what and how to do things becsause SHE was his EQUAL. Now what is there to be careful about with that..unless you too think women should be subservients like Adam was (supposed) to be to Eve and therefore when she told him to eat of the fruit--it was all HER fault.
Anyway so why is GOD a HE? This has nothing to do with Adam and Eve or Science and it appears that you are deflecting the question.
Less anger. It appears you're allowing feminist motives to rile up the conversation. You're clearly adament that women are equal, did I say they weren't? The only evidence to answer the question you're trying to have answered is in the bible, which I tried to present you with this information. As we don't have the ability to travel back in time, I do apologize that my answer is insufficient. But I will be bowing out of this conversation due to hostility. I wish you an absolutely wonderful day, and once again, I do hope you find your answer
Sorry but i am not angry and it seems that for those who ask questions the first thing that is pointed is that the one asking the question is angry at someting or someone or the church. Not everything is in your bible and it states so. I know the answer to the questions that I seek and they are not in that bible. Science doesn't either. It is only hostile if you take it that way. I am only asking questions.
I don't remember asking how the universe was formed, so you didn't answer the questioneither.
Since this is a theological question I fail to understand why science has been bought into the picture. Well since you bought it then let me ask you this?
In Science we have an accepted process/methodology to prove/disprove theories? In religion when there are so many and each claiming there version to be the "truth" based on their faith where the accepted process/methodology is to practice the regulations of that particular religion to know the "truth" then can it be reasonably ascertained to be the undisputed truth by all?
I believe both are separate areas and one(religion) is personal which should be left to the individual experiences and the other(science) is open to be proved/disproved as it is continuously evolving(where the end of scientific knowledge is nowhere in sight). There are so many experiences that science is still learning to explain hence science by itself isn't perfect but at least it open for questioning.
But whereas in areas of faith let us live and let live along with others who may have a different religion or no religion since each individual's mindset varies based on there personal background, upbringing and experiences.
My reason for bringing it up was because of people that were simply dismissing it as false. I believe many of these people do that from flawed scientific explanation. But I certainly agree that Science is important, and is most certainly a work in progress. I think religion is a wonderful thing as long as people don't warp it for their own motives as many extremists do.
Pretty omnipotent then huh? He made a male then "realized" that the male would need a female to breed?
You do not actually take the fairy tale literally do you?
It doesn't really work to take the simple classical Conservation laws and apply them to singularities. If you're not sure what a singularity is, sketch a graph of y = 1/x for the range x = -1 to x = 1. Notice something happening at the origin? The big bang can be likened to a singularity that all mass/energy somehow passed through. From this side of it, you can (in theory only) analyse your way back ever closer to it, but not through it. But don't be thinking about classical concepts like gas and energy in the neighborhood of a singularity.
Scientists do not "pretend to have it all worked out". They try to come up with closer and closer approximations to the truth, rejecting theories that prove inadequate. The big bang and evolution have nothing whatever to do with each other, beyond being the two theories that religionists like to shoot peas at. How much organic matter do you reckon there was around the big bang?
Let me know if you need a hand drawing that graph, ok?
LG- I guess it depends on the culture too. In certain eastern religions there is a belief of Mother Goddess (I.e., In Hindus Kali is Mother Goddess and the presiding deity of the city of Calcutta). Even in the west the Pagans have a belief in the Mother Goddess and besides that the Roman catholics also pray to Mother Mary (although I don't know whether they equate her to God)
Is there really any God ?
I learnt that the "Big Bang" Created the Universe.
No, These Did: http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/the_ … _files.htm
God is neither man nor a woman or even a human. However, God is simply spirit or energy & is invisible but exists in every living being.
Alpha and Omega, Yang and Yin, the two halves of the whole. can't have one without the other. It is my understanding, that in the ultimate origin sense of creation, Alpha (the Spirit source) becomes Omega (mater source). We see it happening all the time as impetus of Spirit is coalescing into the substances of which stars, planets and all mater are being born.
The Universe is not meant to be totally understood. The Spirit Source can not be understood perfectly...I have no problem accepting that. But I do enjoy watching man think he can reason all that is. Though it is truly a waste of their time, when they could be expending that energy creating a better world within and without.
Physical space is not the final frontier.
When God allowed themselves to be created as individuals, we let them call God, he or she, whatever we wanted at the time.
I will not claim to be a religious expert, I will only share with you what I have learned. In the English language the word GOD is Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent. The "Lord" is the "he" that is spoken of in the Bible. If you read the Bible carefully you read the book you will see that therr is more than one creation one by God and one by the "Lord". The Bible is a translated book you one would have to be an expert in Greek, Latin and History to really get mastership of understanding or decoding the book.
Consider that there are other cultures where Goddess is in charge and she is the original creator. My final analysis is that people will say and think what they want, but there is no absolute evidence about how this cosmos was created, that is why there is "Faith".
I wish you the best in your serch. Peace and Blessing.
'God' to my mind is neither male nor female but encompasses everything we can think of and many we cannot. God and Goddess are human terms for communication purposes in a universe of opposites.
I think we are forgetting history in this question too. Here were were shown Sciencetific evidence as being unprovable and the Bible as absolute proof. When I asked the question about God bein a HE and not a SHE and I brought up my thoughts, they were then called be careful, and then I it was insunnuated that I was being feminist and the person walked away. He never did answer the direct question but beated around the bush. Then I was told that all answers are in the Bible and when I told them they are not they left and told me that they hope that I find all my answers and that we cant go back in time.........then that just means they don't or can't find the answers in the bible. What is wrong with that picture?
Bible, or for that matter any religious book is the representation of the ideas of the dominant group of that particular religion (the Priestly class). They are also useful as tools to understand the then living conditions and social structure. May be those who wrote Bible wanted to suppress women. So, they gave man a top priority.
When we compare the religious books of various regions, we can conclude that almost similar changes took place in all of them and they represented the same ideas at same time periods.
According to History, the first settled lives in all parts of the globe had matriarchal families. At in the same time period, they all showed a gradual shift towards dominance of men especially when one settlement began to conquer the other. The importance of man as a protector, fighter and eventually a savior was established.
It was in this time period that people began to write religious books. So, man was given more importance and he was glorified with the creation of characters like Adam.
Strictly speaking, the earliest man worshiped various forces of nature and most of them were equated with the feminine gender. So, the actual God is a woman. Later, when man found a way to protect himself from these forces, the importance to the Gods of nature diminished gradually and many of the medieval and modern Gods were created.
Thank Yu very much fr this Historical approach. I have done so in one of my hubs too. I will post it but please don't take this as a promotion to my hubs becasue I only want to spread knowledge and not get money from these. So here is the hub:
Lilith was/is a legend or myth of a militant feminist demon that kills babys. Sounds kind of familiar to today's feminist movement.
This is a hit and run, so I'm getting out of here before the shite hits the fan.
Does your wife have a rolling pin? And does she know how to use it?
I would hazard a guess that Make Money is single - assuming he has the same opinions in real life as he has on these forums
And I prefer my singularities with coke
God has no gender, that is a human condition and the discussion of the ententes gender is ridiculous
Hi Sandman, I agree.
An extraction from the work of Dr. Samuel Sagan's A Language to Map Consciousness re the Hermaphordite.
The condition of human beings before the separation of the sexes, that is, before the fall.
The main thing to understand here is that the hermaphroditic origin of human beings isn't some kind of weird marginal theory, but a view found in a wide variety of religious and philosophical contexts. Plato's myth of the androgyne (found in the Symposium) is a well-known example. Not so well known is the fact that the book of Genesis suggests there were two stages in the creation of humankind:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.
Meaning that to begin with, Adam was Adam-Eve, the hermaphroditic being in the image of God. Then came the separation of sexes: Adam and Eve. Among other things, this means it wasn't the woman who caused the fall! Before the fall, there was no woman. It is the fall itself that separated men and women.
This view, accepted by mainstream Jewish Kabbalists, is expressed quite explicitly in a variety of apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, Gnostic texts such as those of the Nag Hammadi library, as well as the Corpus Hermeticum and a massive volume of ancient and medieval alchemical literature. It also forms one of the central themes of the Theosophy of Jacob Boehme, and of the model of Rudolf Steiner.
Technically, the term hermaphrodite tends to be reserved for human beings before the fall. To describe the human condition after regeneration (the correction of the effects of the fall), the term androgyne is used.
(The rolling pin remark was an off topic retort to MM)
That is all well and good, but SirDent will claim that anything that he does not see in that bible is heretical and not to be believed.
What about the OUR image, not singular, but plural there. They made US in OUR image. I posted biblical scriptures on another religious forum post here. Oh it was the one asking if God gave us permission or something like that.
Sir Dent need to explorer bible much much deep than he has including the part that where;left out of the New Testament..Thank you Lady.
I'm not really concerned whether Sir Dent believes it or not, quite frankly it's his problem! I'm interested in my experiences, my own truth. Dogma can be a huge distraction when it comes to spiritual experiences. I think Jesus would agree with that one.
*I* agree with that one. It isn't just SirDent but a few others on hubpages as well. I was challenged by one hubber and I left him alone for a few months, but then he came back in on of my hubs and spread his fear, so in one of his hubs I gave some other information to him and he didn't appreciate it one bit. I went back to his hub and told him that he was the one who challenged me first.
Question: Are they wanting us to do this for their learning or just on the edge of learning? I don't know how to explain this and it isn't coming across the way that I want it too---like when I first started to explore beyond the church--the feeling like one is breaking the membrane of the inside of an egg before you break through the shell. I mean I was just where they were all into the doctrine and dogma before I was on my longe and winding road to wehre I am today.
I can't speak for them, and sometimes I'm at a loss as to what they are really trying to pass. It's not knowledge, not in my book. I've had experiences with ex-Christians who have been involved with the evangelical kind in counselling sessions where they have allot of difficulty undoing the beliefs. So your analogy of breaking the membrane, and then the harder shell bodes well. It's a conditioning, beliefs can become conditioning and beliefs are not easy to undo. These forum debates often end up in a self justification of belief which doesn't get very far - you will have noticed the circular tendencies to these discussions!
You assume that all women are feminists but see these web sites on women against feminism.
By the way I didn't give credit to who wrote the page on Lilith above. It was written by The Straight Dope - Fighting Ignorance Since 1973 (It's taking longer than we thought).
So that is the lie they have told you!
Umm, as we just discovered on science forums (which no doubt prompted this thread), the god is he because he has several penises. Yes, according to science he is an alien, too
But this all those godless scientists that want to con us into believing this! I have an insider information thought - god is she, and I even have a pic of her!
That wasn't where I got th question or thought of the question from.
Aevans, I only want to know the original answer from those who claim the God is a HE and then the other beings are dropped out of sight. There have been other things in here besides christianity, Country Woman is the best to tell us her side of her beliefs and she has. I didn't realize that this just doesn't register in some peoples thoughts or reading as it is in front of them and they still can't see it.
god is beyond label. "he" is for convenience purposes only and an issue that should never even merit a discussion when put side by side with "his" greatness.
Pity, I seem to have wasted a response on someone who's already gone. Fancy a singularity anyone?
That's the only way to take them. Especially the naked singularities with spin...
Yeah, I have noticed that they all tell me that I leave or throw temper tantrums at them when *I* don't want to believe what they are saying. I don't see that at all and I don't just hit and run! I don't think it was missed at all. Others here will have an open mind to science and hwat you are saying. Remember there are those who won't post anything.
I come to realize that *I* have a following of sorts. They want to see what it is that they think that I am posting against there church and try to convert me to one of them---Scientific Star Trek, their BORG. LOL We will assimulate you! LOL
LOL LG, you are soo serious! Yet if it is not another thread that prompted you, than this idea should be in the air lately And I can't believe nobody watched "Dogma" with Alanis Morissette playing god.
That's what I found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvcTsOEFQgk
It's split into 10-minutes parts. Fun movie
Sorry to butt in, but here is a thought I feel important, from reading some of the past comments. I do not attend forums much, because it seems there are too many arguments and bashing here, but I want to point this out.
The Hebrew and Greek Bible used plural nouns and verb forms when talking about God. Also, there are spots in the King James translation where plural verb forms are used for God.
God created man in his image, in his image he created them male and female.
Does not nature itself teach us that to have a father, there must be a mother? Are we not his offsprings as it states in the Bible.
I really despise feminists. I want to become manist but thats not even a word lol. DAMN YOU SPELL CHECK!
And we really despise you, too... And I doubt the 'feminists' are the only women around you that might have those thoughts. lol
Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights
But imagine it may be a little over your head.
No, just funny. I don't have any respect for Christian god. Neither Muslim or Jewish
There is a greater power a greater energy, we did not happen by mistake, but I agree with what YOU ARE SAYING, WE HAVE no idea HOW TO DEFINE IT
That is definitely agreeable Whether it is or it is not, it definitely does not care if we poke some fun at it
The defining perhaps has drawn out word gravity. We take it literally when talking about the Father and Mother. And this literal translation keeps us separated and not in union as was the intention.
Looking at Father and Mother on a higher level, not our fallen thought level that seems to smother this religious forum, it is just the masculine and feminine, that when integrated into one, is a divine state of consciousness. Now that statement can be read into in many ways, because levels of consciousness are multifaceted. So leave out all references to texts of differing religious sects and the understanding is quite simple, which it is meant to be. A polarity may be useful, but understanding that polarity encompasses many experiences, one being the yin/yang, or male/female. It is not to be either/or but to integrate all qualities. Neither is better or greater than the whole.
If an individual can't understand that within him/herself is the tendency to be one or the other at different times while walking in the biped, then perhaps there is no resonance with this experience or way of being.
I love it when I am mentioned in threads where I have not participated. I do recall answering this question once before. Can't remeber if it was on hub or in the forums and don't feel like searching for it.
God is father because he sired man. Men sire children. Women can't actually sire them.
Please stop mentioning my name when I am not in a diuscussion.
This is whay I refuse to discuss anything anymore here. Nothing is ever taken seriously. A question is asked, an answer given, and all that comes next is you are blind, you are stupid, you are crazy.
YOU know that is not what I meant, yet you still want to point fingers. You jumped to the WRONG conclusion. You have a problem seeing what you are doing. Have you ever tried to step back from the emotional parts and look into the window of your living room of what you are doing to see what you are doing?
What I meant, if you come back and I thinkyou will, is that you said you weren't in this discussion-well there are like 6 posts HERE to prove otherwise---so the question was Are you blind in not knowing you are already here in the discussion?
God is a He because it is correct from a literary stand point. Men did write most of the Bible and it was during a time of a very patriarchal society. Therefore, using the HE would be more comfortable for humans than IT. If the masculine offends you use the way in which God refers to himself "I AM".
Is humorous that Lillith is blamed for 'causing wet dreams.' Why don't men take responsibility for their own animalistic tendencies? Then again, to understand that mechanism, is to be very self aware of what energetic circumstances are created between the two. The man is physiologically weaker in this act. The woman is the ultimate seducer and men have plenty of troubles not being swayed by the alluring nature of a passionate woman. Lack of self control in the human male species.
Perhaps it is this very thing, the alluring nature of a woman and the weakness of a man that led to the myth being created. Lets throw the woman to the darkside as being the cause of the woes of men. It's very convenient.
But still, it's a myth and is perhaps what was used to dissempower the masses. Sexuality is powerful both positively and negatively. If a person cannot control their sexuality then "all hell breaks loose." Who has more trouble controlling it? Man or Woman. Perhaps by making the woman subservient, or less than the male, the problem would be solved? This damning of sexuality, or in a deeper sense sexual energy is perhaps the one core mistake (or was it) in a return to a more divine state. Which makes me very suspicious (dare I say I believe) that the Catholic church used this very issue to dissempower people. And to this day it still does.
Please allow me to make myself clear, I don't buy into the feminist movement, I have no need to. Having said that I think Lillith is awesome!
Yes!! She was created Equal and then Adam didn't like Equal and so Eve was made out of Adam------out of Adam, meaning she was to be his subservient from the beginning. Then when she chose to listen to a lowly serpent (that is false too if you know what serpents and snakes and dragons are really like in nature) she is blamed for being the lesser human. Again she was the blame becasue it was made that way, BUT Adam has a brain too and he didn't HAVE to eat the fruit. That is called using your brain and being Self Responsible. Adam can only blame himself and no one else for eating that fruit. Now that isn't feminist.
I think the interpretation has become far too literal. I doubt there was a conversation where Adam said he wanted Eve to be lesser than. However, you could see that because of the dangers inherent in succumbing to the forces of an alluring woman, perhaps it was the man who feared his self control.
Be that as it may. Being too literal is dangerous and may create ignorance The use of the term serpent, and dragons is to do with sexuality and life force. The symbol of the serpent biting it's tale was adopted by alchemists as a representation of the prima materia, being the one substance out of which the entire creation emerged. The dragon in Christian terminology is used to refer to satanic ways. In other traditions this is not the case. In the ancient Chinese model it refers to a fullness of life force, fullness of vitality. Taken to the extreme it is through the lower energies that this fullness can take cosmic proportions.
Gnostic writings, the Chinese model, Hindu teachings to name a few, the Serpent, Dragon and Kundulini of Tantric techniques has the similar if not the same meaning.
Is so interesting to know that in esoteric teachings being able to tap into the energies of these lower chakras, or sexual levels, or the levels of 'the serpent' is an empowering and significant experience when going through levels of transformation. BUT in Christian teachings it is satanic. It seems intentional that this has become the case.
Sorry girls but as a Catholic I had never heard of the myth of Lilith being Adam's mate until LG posted about it. So I found this non-Catholic source the other day.
Today I did a search for Lilith in the Catholic encyclopedia and just found this one page on Demonology. Quote from the first paragraph
I'd beware if I were you LG and Jewel.
I'll stick with the Bible myself, it has more than enough to satisfy me, thanks.
Like you say Mike, you can't depend on everything you read on the internet. I got the reference from the two DVD that I watched and it wasn't as demonic as that stuff you just pulled up. Theone was The History of God and the other Angels: Good or Evil. They both are onmy The Long and Winding Road hub. They went into more depth on those then anything that I can find on the internet.
No just reading the wrong stuff in my opinion Misha.
Yeah that's interesting LG. You might be interested in what the Conclusion to the Demonology page says.
Why would God make a Demon of/with Adam?
If you are still thinking of Lilith then you are mixing later writings with the earlier book of Genesis. In Genesis the demon serpent tempted Adam and Eve.
Anyway my previous posts clearly show that demons do not just come from Christian teachings.
Well Lilith was not a deamon when she was made with Adam, until he had problems with her forthfightness. It doesn't matter because that bible had been translated millions of times by different peoples each with their own language barriers. Now don't go off with your supposition of me talking agains't the bible, because that is what has been ingrained into you since birth and I accept that. What I don't accept is the prejudgment of what there is out there and that everything but your teachings is false or wrong or just plain evil. There are always three views to a story and maybe even more.
The thought just occrued to me--if Lilith is myth and she was made from Adam, would that not also say that Adam was myth and further that the God of those is too?
Hey Misha, I have to tell ya, I'm a fan of that iconic goddess, she's amazing. And to be honest MM is a sitting duck in comparison. Quack quack!
Here is the frist part of The History Of God a bit of history for all here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6dyoE89 … re=related
For some reason they do not have a youtube video of the Angels: Good or Evil, but here is a place werhe you can get the DVD yourself. They may have a different name of the youtube videos becaseu I have found they do this sometimes for the History and A and E channel originals.
http://www.newvideo.com/productdetail.h … -AAE-73021
I found it on the internet in a book like text. You can red it for yourself!
http://126.96.36.199/search?q=cache:0w5 … &gl=us
Well whether you choose to believe in the later Assyrian/Chaldean/Talmudic myth of Adam and Lilith or not, what I'm trying to show you is that even they (Assyrians, Chaldeans and Babylonian Talmudic Jews) believed that Lilith was an evil demon.
I don't know where we are going here LG. You are even agreeing that there are good and evil angels. The evil angels are called demons.
I didn't agree that there are evil angels.
I found another story of the Adam and Eve and Lilith: http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/plas.htm
What I am trying to state here is that there was someone before Adam and the treatment of Women are by Men alone, not a God. Religion tends to hide things from its parishioners and for a very good reason...........they think they are protecting you, but in the end they may not be.
But LG this web site that you posted is all about good and evil angels.
This is a real good site LG. You might consider paying more attention to this site than the other two. I particularly like this verse that they quote "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it. (NASB) Hebrews 13:2"
I was trying to find the information from the DVD Documentary and posted this before I had the chance to read the whole thing. It only goes to page 9. You will just have to watch the two DVD's.
The thought just occrued to me--if Lilith is myth and she was made from Adam, would that not also say that Adam was myth and further that the God of those is too?
You may be interested to read this: http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/consum1.htm
From Are demons fallen angels?
What are the names and titles the Bible uses for the devil?
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/list … devil.html
Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet. In Biblical terms Alpha and Omega means God being the first and the last, the beginning and the end (Revelations 1:8, 21:6 & 22:13).
This is a link to a great hub on things Devilish, it's well written and researched.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Counterpoint-A- … -The-Devil
I wrote a few bits and pieces above with sex included.
If you buy into Christianity, they can be one and the same. (sex and Satan that is). Sex is awesome and is a way to god - who would have thought it.
With you all the way. Want to get into the lower chakras with me?
wow that's deep. maybe i could observe for a while? i'm still shaking in my boots
Shaking in one's boots is a byproduct of going this deep into oneself. But it's a great experience. You know really really really good sex, feels like the earth moved. But there has to be love involved otherwise Lillith will spit you out.
Now I'm lost. Maybe i should read this thread from the begining. Yep, I think that's what I'll do
Quote by Jewels
Get behind me satan, or is it Lilith.
She's a succubus Cris.
LOL. The men I've slept with were very much awake Mike and I can't recall bad reviews! The main point I'm making in that above statement is that you can't fear something you have consciousness of. Put light into the darkness. And if you think sexuality is dark, then put some light into that Mike.
I was going off the reason why God is a he, and off the Cliff Richard classic.
I know you sing the Doxology in church. You talk of the Alpha and Omega being the beginning and the END. If Omega is end then why in the Doxology does it say at the end--"world without end. Amen"?
Isn't your analogy a bit contradictory?
By the way Deamons were devised by someone that couldn't understand why things were so bad in the 1500's and that is how they entered into to bible. Now your clergy will not tell you that, just as they never told you about Lilith. Some things they don't know themselves---kind of lke the blind leading the blind.
God must be refered to as He. God however, must have attributes of both male and female. But God is a He and His true church is she. Let's see, bride of Christ mean anything? Well, how about the Whore of Babylon (also a she). I have some definate thoughts of what that is but here is not the place to state them.
What if it was a LITERAL interpretation. The Bride of Christ---wasn't it said that Jesus had a bride--Mary Magdelene (sp)? In some places there is a genealogy of the Children of the union. I think someone who started writing about Babylon being bad was kind of jealous of that nation because in history that part of the world and certainly Babylon had all the greatest ports and with that all the goods of the world trade.
The only way GOD is a HE is by MAN and not GOD.
God is both 'He' and 'She' and 'None'. Due to agrarian lifestyle ancient religions preached to worship 'Sun' as god. Later, they realized that the source of all vegitation is Mother Earth which made them shift their focus to 'Feministic Religions'. Infact, most of the ancient religions have more female dieties than male.
As far as monotheistic religions; Jewism, Christianity and Islam are concerned, they started off with a version of God that was neither male nor female. However, with the passage of time and the sad male dominance in ancient civilizations, the interpretation/translation of Torah, Bible and Quran was molded in such a way that it seems that God is a male.
In my personal belief, one cannot ascribe a gender to God. And people shouldnot let them fall into another frenzy of male vs. female debate; our relationships with God should be above all that.
by Alem Belton5 years ago
After an internal debate between science and philosophy I am leaning towards an answer of yes. This is due to the fact that the scientific explanation for the existence of life is greatly flawed, which leaves only one...
by Retrohawaii5 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
by pay2cEM6 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to...
by uncorrectedvision5 years ago
As I understand it, everything did not exist at all a nano-second before the "Big Bang" and everything, absolutely all the energy in the Universe was in existence a nano-second after the "Big...
by Phocas Vincent2 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys,...
by Yoleen Lucas3 years ago
You guys - I posted this in the Questions section, but because it turned into a full-blown discussion, HubPagers advised me to move it to Forums. Here it is:"Cult" is defined as a system of beliefs that...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.