Why God is always HE and not SHE? Doesn't it indicate that the concept of God came from MEN and not from WOMEN?
because those who created god where he...most religious books are gender biased ...
1; The Bible specifically speaks of God as HE. It's God's own revelation of Himself.
Jesus spoke of Him as FATHER. Jesus being the physical manifestation of God in the flesh, came to us as a MAN, not a woman.
2; It's more about authority than about gender (sex). Man is the ordained authority over creation. We were the ones given dominion over ALL of creation, before woman was made.
(of course, Adam squandered that on satan's temptation, and handed that authority over to him).
Indeed it does. And sexist men at that.
I believe, in actuality, God is a HE because, when the Bible was written, women having any sort of "power" was unheard of. It was all about the men in that time, so of course, it would seem natural for God to be a male.
But, of course, there's not necessarily proof that he is male, and there are those out there that bring up the possibility of God being Female. Or, perhaps even genderless - God taking on any form he chooses.
But, in general, I think it's all about the time period having a big role in why god is HE.
Makes sense to me. Wasn't it men who wrote the different books in the bible? I don't know of any female? Perhaps too females were considered subservient in those days I think.
Are you sure that God isn't plural?
Eloheim, is the plural form of Elowah. Genesis 1:1 states
Beresit bara Eloheim et hassamayim waet ha-ares weha-ares hayetah.
In-the-beginning created God(plural) the-heavens the-earth the-earth was.
We translate this as In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
But, the word is still plural...
"God" isn't always male, you just may not be familiar with the spiritualities that engender the concept of a supreme divine female.
God is not "always" depicted as male. The Abrahamic faiths made monotheism popular for the last two millennia in the Middle East and the West as a part of a move to urbanization and formalized militarism, which grew out of Greek and Roman polytheism in which the creation myths involved the destruction of the powerful chthonic (female/mother)deities through the creation of new stories that placed goddesses subservient to male gods. Eventually there was no point in this as war became more awesome than life-bringing, the feminine was made vile morally, and the pantheons were destroyed. Pagan faiths were trampled by Christianity which was the most advanced religion of the time technologically, being the one that recognized the value of the codex. The rest is present history. While new technologies are helping to spread the word of other religions, that same technology is spreading scientific learning as well.
The dusty old religions of the last two thousand years or so have pretty well run their course (as evidenced by the massive atrophy of religion everywhere that information is allowed the light of day), and new ones will have to evolve from their decaying bodies to suit the new age. This has always been the case with religion for arguably a hundred thousand years or more. Today's religions stand no better chance of holding up through time than the any of the ones that gave birth to them.
The pronoun "he" is gender neutral until given context. I have read neither the Bible, Qu'ran nor the Torah, but I can only assume it does not talk in great detail of God's genitals in any of them. Deductions such as the one this thread is about is what ruins religion for the rest of the world.
if god was deemed to be a she no one would have listened. when god was created, men ruled without question and if they would have said god was a she, most people would have laughed at even the thought of the supreme being not being a male. religion would never have even got off the ground.
Actually, the Bible indicates some kind of co-operation between two or more separate "yet one" creative forces, evidenced by the verse "Let US make man in OUR own image." The creation was male AND female. The mirror image of the creator. Both are the image. You see? Not even Moses was dumb enough to think God was JUST male and did it ALL BY HIMSELF...unlike all the millions of interpretators that have read it down through the ages right to modern times. CAN ANYONE READ?
Because early tribes were ruled by men. Women, at the time when religions were first being born and gods thought up, were not a part of tribal rule.
You are right, I think. But, had women been the spiritual leaders I'm sure they would have painted the One God with masculine attributes. God's first big act for the Israelites was leading them out of Egypt. I doubt anyone would have believed a nation would follow a little woman god in defiance of the living god pharaoh.
Although, wandering around lost for forty years behind a female deity might have been sellable to a patriarchal society. I doubt they would have gotten the same moral out of the story, though.
I was always under the impression that it was because He made a man first and because he doesn't really have a gender, but all of our pronouns are geared towards genders.
the bible describes god as mild as a mother. the biblical god has positive feminine attributes. the presbyterian church these days often describes god as "she".
Oh, HOW PROGRESSIVE?
(read with sarcasm applied)
So is sacrilege.
If the Lord wanted to be referred to as "she", He would have said so.
i take it you're a guy and you don't want to share the glory. two wrongs don't make a right. you say on your profile you have a gift for teaching and encouragement. i'd say maybe, within a very narrow framework. you seem awfully willing to tear down. true encouragers are more consistent. they don't become bullies just because they disagree with someone.
i also take it you don't eat pork and you don't let your wife braid her hair and you believe in slavery, all things you would have to do if you take the literal position you're making out of the gender issue.
You take it wrong!
I never said it was a gender issue!
Perhaps you should read my fist post.
I never argue that God does indeed have, and displays feminine qualities. He does NOT, however want us to refer to Him as Her, or She. He is referred to as Father. Mother is never mentioned in scripture.
Did you learn anything?
PS, my wife doesn't like to braid her hair. It's too thick and too short for that.
What glory am I not sharing?I am not tearing people down, just false doctrine! Do you want to learn, or argue?
I can teach, AND encourage!
The Bible is very clear on pulling down false doctrine.
I didn't bully anyone. I did, quite rightly, expose the Presbyterian church's reference to God as she, (if indeed they do) as sacrilege, because it is.
Dj, has it occurred to you that, perhaps, you don't know all there is to know on the subject? Are you in a position to learn, also?
Why do people argue 'God said this, or that' when all interpretations within Christianity come from the same source? If God exists, he apparently said many different things to a lot of people. It is bullying when one person attempts to force another to believe that their belief is wrong.
The only sacrilege in the physical reality may be passing off opinion of the spiritual as universal truth.
It has not only occurred to me, but in fact stares me in the face.
I DON'T know everything.
The Apostles wrote what they "had seen and heard", to pass on to us the truth.
Like them, I only speak/teach what I know.
The Apostle Paul wrote to many churches to set them straight. They all had issues that were needing to be corrected.
If you read the letters to the churches that Jesus reveals in the Book of Revelation, He does the same thing.
He commends them for their strengths, and rebukes them for their error/weakness.
The aim of it all is Spiritual understanding, not tickling the ears, or accommodating the flesh.
So, how is thinking God is neither male or female tickling the ear, accommodating the flesh or a sacrilege?
The one where they made the references in the hymns genderless, when possible? If so, I'm still at a bit of a loss.
Genderless does not equate to "SHE".
But besides all that, we are called to worship the FATHER, in Spirit and in TRUTH.
(NOTE: NOT MOTHER).
You know, I've always thought people took the argument of who/what/where God is to absurd levels. Who cares how others percieve the spirit? Whatever it takes to pull oneself closer should be considered a good thing.
There are those that think if you don't call the spirit Jehovah it is a travesty. Do you know what that word means, literally translated syllable by syllable? God is perverse. And yet they argue on.
The concept is nameless and formless. I assume whatever image we share with it has nothing to do with gender. Pulling the image of God into human form negates the transitory quality of the spirit as it slips in and out of the physical world. I fully understand why the ancients envisioned it as masculine; but that doesn't mean gender was written in stone.
Why can't the religions celebrate the fact that all beliefs reach in the same direction? We have a tendency to tear the idea into tiny portions and hold onto them tightly; negating all else that has been revealed.
Except according to the Bible, man (woman) CANNOT get closer to God.
Sin separates us from Him. We need a mediator, (Jesus IS that mediator).
That's the whole purpose for which Jesus came, to lay down His life for OUR sins, so we can get back to having a (living) relationship with (The FATHER) God.
What else IS the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ?
Ummmm, so what's the problem? If you believe the mediator is in place, except you may want to believe that only your interpretation is allowed? What makes you think the mediator isn't actively mediating for all of humanity? God so loved the world and all.
I had an Episcopal priest tell me, years ago, that everyone goes to heaven. Sinners are first in line because they need the love of God most. They have been separated the longest. I thought the guy was an idiot, at the time. I was too young to have spent any time thinking about the whole idea of heaven and hell and sin. It wasn't until years later that I understood where he was coming from. I think, if heaven exists, the guy was right. It's the only thing that makes sense.
in isaiah 66:13, god speaks and compares the comfort given by god to that of a mother. i don't understand why it's such a big deal to you. you might want to explore your motives. i think god would have bigger issues in mind or, given that the majority of worshipers are female, would welcome being identified with them. i have never imagined god as having the organs of either sex, rather as sort of a golden glow, like in the burning bush. could be he, she, or even it.
i never said you said it was a gender issue. i call it a gender issue.
"when you find the buddha, kill him." beware of claiming special knowledge.
my niece is a presbyterian minister. hymns have been re-written to exclude the use of expressly masculine personifications of god.
i'm on the other side of the world from you and up very late. must go to bed. am not ignoring you.
I recon John Calvin would be rolling in his grave if he knew this was going on!
Sorry to hear you take this personally. Truth is truth, and they say two things about it.
1) Sometimes the truth hurts.
2) You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Interesting in light of the fact that God said mankind is made in God's image. I'm a little rusty on my science but when a child is conceived does it not always start out as the same gender? Perhaps that is the true gender of the God of the Bible.
Here's a thought for you.
Gad made Adam.
He later removed a rib, and made Eve.
It stands to reason to conclude, Adam was a "complete" being, both masculine and feminine. So, when he was "separated" into two (sexes), Eve was given the feminine traits, and Adam (retained) the masculine.
I'm sorry that offends you.
The truth hurts sometimes.
Paul said that The Gospel is an OFFENCE to those who don't believe, and a sweet smelling aroma of LIFE to those who DO (believe).
in what chapter and verse did paul say that?
no human being has a corner on the truth. thinkng one does is quite arrogant.
I understand your perspective. I truly do.
You just don't seem to understand the Biblical one.
Paul, nor any other Apostle claims "cornering" the truth, in the way that you are suggesting.
What Paul, and all the other Apostles DO claim (as do I), is that JESUS claimed to BE the Truth. He said "I AM the way, the TRUTH and the Life, and no man comes to the Father but BY ME!"
I'm sure you have heard that statement at some time or other.
If we have acknowledged and received Jesus Christ as lord and saviour (as "we" have) we can now claim to have THE TRUTH, because we have Christ.
Now, everyone else who is seeking after truth will find bits of it here and there, and argue over who's better, right, more influential, or more "holy". I wish them well, but they are all on the path of religion, and not on the path of LIFE.
Yes, by any number of despots and dictators. If someone is making that claim about themselves, run as fast as you can as they are obviously lying.
seriously, i can't find the verse you quote above about the gospel having the aroma of life. where is it?
I don't know whether you noticed or not, but ATM's post had nothing to do with the gospel.
Of course, each holy book has it's own self-serving, protective clauses built into them in order to keep the flocks sustained and justified in their faith.
But, because they all say the same thing, they are all obviously false.
And, but putting up such arguments in defense of the faith only shows how tentative a grasp believers have on them and how desperate they are to defend.
(Gad made Adam.
He later removed a rib, and made Eve.)
In Genesis, chapter 1, verse 27, God makes man and woman at the same time, but in chapter 2 god creates Eve from Adam's rib. So which chapter is right?
Dear oh dear.
Is this what it all comes down to? Answering your (unbelieving) questions one by one?
Has it occurred to you that in ch 1 he (the writer) introduces the topic, and then in ch2 expounds on it?
How many writers or speakers give an outline of what they are going to share, and use terms like "But, I'll get back to that in more detail later"?
I've done it lots of times, as i
I'm sure you have also!
Applying your methodology of separating the same event into two, would make Jesus death and resurrection be four events, or more. IE He died and rose again in Matthew, died and rose again in Mark etc.
(Is this what it all comes down to? Answering your (unbelieving) questions one by one?)
No, dj, I'm just wondering if you realize that what you espouse as universally factual is not universally agreed. Many biblical scholars have concluded that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by different authors.
Different authors actually makes more sense that what you claim, as the differences between the chapters are much more than can be explained away as a restatement - the actual timing of events is different.
As far as you claims of faith go, you can equally claim total faith in Grimm's Fairty Tales as teaching the truth - but your belief does not make anything universally true. It only means you accept it.
If you would simply make your arguments about why you chose to believe instead of implying knowledge about what is genuine truth, your ideas would be better received.
That's not a position I hold!
Again, it's not a position I hold. This is opinion, and they/you are entitled to it.
This is incorrect also. I have read Grimm's Fairy Tales, and they were my favorite children's stories when i was growing up. I had NO Biblical stories in the same time period. I would have thought you'd give me a bit more credit, than to accuse me of equating one with the other.
I'm sorry to have to disagree with you again, but my arguments would not be any better received, because you have dismissed my point of view from the outset on fundamental differences between our worldviews.
I have often stated what I believe, why I believe, and these I declare as a matter of discussion continually.
I can't make you (or others) listen!
It still comes down to faith. What YOU believe.
Ok, you hold him down and I'll beat the plaster out of him.
Easy! Religion is man-made, and its creation (religion) was in a time of ignorance and obliviousness to the world around!
However, Jesus was a REAL person, not a religion!This IS offensive, and stupid, as well as childish.
Actually, in Hebrew, the "He" was gender neutral. The pronoun used for God was actually a plural term, "Elohim," which means a series of functions. The "He" wasn't added until the Bible was translated into Aramaic, Greek and Latin.
And our belief (or not) in a diety notwithstanding, this is precisely why the books of religion should not be looked at literally. They are not in their original language with their original meaning. Even if you think the original writers were inspired by the god, that is not the book you hold in your hand. It is not the book you hold in your heart. You are holding what some 'learned' person has decided was meant by the language that is no longer spoken, no longer used.
In a species where the gender split and roles are so profoundly important culturally, the change to 'HE' is clearly socially motivated and therefore suspect.
I agree with you, Anton. For those who want to dive deeply into the text should study it in its original language. The KJV was edited to the extreme by King James and very significant parts were edited (i.e. Cain and Abel). I think believers that are interested in more than just living by a moral code should really research the original texts and history of the book itself. Similarly, non-believers that like to question The Bible and other's beliefs should too research before they attempt to argue.
Then, and only then, can we have critical discourse and respect for others while discussing a topic that is so close to people's hearts.
Feminine gods are not so uncommon in history--and my father would have said that the original Deity was the Great Mother, who, according to him, was worshipped by all humans in deep prehistory.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar4 years ago
In a forum, I asked a question: Why God created atheists? Now I ask, why man created God?
by Deforest4 years ago
This famous quote originated from a French singer/composer/musician called Serge Gainsbourg corresponds to my idea of God. Any thoughts as for the rightfulness of his quote?
by cheaptrick5 years ago
I've never gotten an answer that explains why God is a"HE".I'm wondering if God choose to be a"He" and if so,Why?The bible says Gods a"HE"but doesn't tell us Why?Isn't being...
by GoldenBird5 years ago
If a God exists- then who created that God? How can the Creator be created? Do you have any reason? -this is one of the final questions you will ever face. You can bring Immanuel Kant to the discussion, I will not...
by pisean2823115 years ago
well this question often comes to my mind that if god created everything , who created him?..some say he was always there but if he was always there than what is he?..is he is energy which manifested itself as...
by Mahaveer Sanglikar4 years ago
Believers say that Jesus was Son of God. If the God has Son, there must be a father of him. So who is the father of the God? I think that as Man created God, man is father of God. What do you say?
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.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.