Does God Have Genitalia

[Pardus]

Now the question this thread is now posing is;

Can god have sex with itself?

 

[Bishka]

God's presence didn't satisfy Eve's desire for an apple.

So God is a hermaphrodite? What color is his skin? His eyes? Broad or thin nose? What haircolor?

Which of us are more in God's image than the others?

No, I also believe there is a Heavenly Mother, but She isn't talked about much. I don't know the color of sing, broad or thin, etc., but I believe we were created in His general image, not to the exact specifications.

It would be boring that way and I think God knew that.

 

[Bishka]

Now the question this thread is now posing is;

Can god have sex with itself?

Which God? Abrahamic god, no. I don't think so.

 

[joeboonda]

I believe that Jesus is God, so yes he does. Does God the Father? I believe he is spirit, he is all present, he is everywhere, and I mean EVERYWHERE, he cannot be contained, so I do not belive he has a body like a man, the Bible says God is Spirit, and all knowing, he is invisible, except as he may manifest himself, like in a burning bush, a whirlwind, thunder and lightening on Mt Sinai, etc. That is a sssssssssstrange question, but interesting enough, lol.

 

[michel]

O.K, so finaly, I am taking this seriously; after searching on the internet for 20 minutes, I have come across one mention of God and genitalia;

http://www.laudemont.org/index.html?MainFrame=http://www.laudemont.org/a-wail.htm
Several years ago, I had the privilege of attending a conference on the future of worship which brought together representatives of all major Christian denominations, and some smaller ones such as my own. The conference featured sessions dealing with worship-related issues and "live" examples of the worship models being discussed.

During one of the sessions, a woman who was an official of one of the more liberal denominations complained that this was not really a conference on the future of worship. Her point was that the worship services had actually regressed 25 years, because they did not use "inclusive" or gender-neutral language. Commenting on a book on biblical worship by Dr. Andrew E. Hill being sold at the conference, she stated she could never recommend it because of its title, Enter His Courts with Praise. She further revealed that during the worship services she had a "visceral reaction" to the exclusive use of masculine terminology for God.

When I objected that I and other evangelicals might equally have a "visceral reaction" to gender-neutral language, a distinguished professor who was part of the conversation chided me, "But, Richard, God does not have genitalia." I think I knew that already. Somehow that profound observation did not settle the issue for me, for reasons I will explore below.

There was a noticeable irony about the whole discussion. The speaker who complained that non-inclusive language can't be the future of worship represented a denomination that is rapidly losing members and closing down churches. The worship services she complained about, which use the scriptural idiom with its masculine pronouns, were led by people from groups that are growing. Where, indeed, does the future of Christian worship lie except with those Christian groups that will survive and grow in the twenty-first century?

The other attendees at the conference, including the evangelicals, were quick to give assurances that they would watch their language in the future. I think they reacted too quickly in their desire not to offend. There are some important reflections on inclusive language in worship that need to be considered before we decide to jettison the Bible's "patriarchal," masculine-oriented way of referring to God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I believe that Jesus is God, so yes he does. Does God the Father? I believe he is spirit, he is all present, he is everywhere, and I mean EVERYWHERE, he cannot be contained, so I do not belive he has a body like a man, the Bible says God is Spirit, and all knowing, he is invisible, except as he may manifest himself, like in a burning bush, a whirlwind, thunder and lightening on Mt Sinai, etc. That is a sssssssssstrange question, but interesting enough, lol.

How 'bout this Christology:

A) God is all-powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present
B) Jesus is a human body and yet fully God, so Jesus is all-powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present

To make B happen, the every-where present nature of God simply flows through the body of Jesus in a way that makes Him fully God and does not threaten the every-where presence of God. The human body of Christ is in a designated place, and his omnipresence is everywhere.

Col. 1.15
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Apparantly being in the presence of God in heaven satisfies all our desires, and IMHO, sexual desire is removed. Remember the Church teaches that sex is for reproduction only, and reproduction is only needed in this life and not our version of the afterlife.

Correct, this thing will then be used for urinating only, and all women will be given vesetomy. And what is the use of the two hanging thingi of male? Perhaps as an artistic decorating piece.....:biglaugh:

 

[greatcalgarian]

We can see from the Scriptures that Jesus was God incarnate, a man who was God and was resurrected a man. Just because Jesus said that people won't have sex in heaven does not mean that they don't have genitalia.

What is the use of this genitalia without the function of sex?

 

[greatcalgarian]

I believe He does. We were created in God's image(in my belief), and so we all have penises and vaginas(sorry to be so crude), so pretty much, yes, I believe He does.

We have either penis or vagina, we cannot have both. God may be able to have both?

 

[Bishka]

We have either penis or vagina, we cannot have both. God may be able to have both?

No, He has, to put it crudly, a penis, but I believe that women were created in our Heavenly Mother's image, so we look like Her, generally.

 

[Ðanisty]

God's presence didn't satisfy Eve's desire for an apple.

Good point. This idea that there is no sex in heaven...I haven't heard this before. It sounds like one more good reason not to go.

We have either penis or vagina, we cannot have both. God may be able to have both?

Actually, we can have both. It is more or less a combination though and not "true" hermaphroditism. These people are called intersexed and their genitals are somewhat of a blend between the two. It happens more frequently than I'm sure you'd like to imagine. Perhaps you should read up on it.

 

[JerryL]

No, I also believe there is a Heavenly Mother, but She isn't talked about much. I don't know the color of sing, broad or thin, etc., but I believe we were created in His general image, not to the exact specifications.

It would be boring that way and I think God knew that.

But some of us look more like God than others. Some are more godly. Perhaps they should rule the others as God rules us.

 

[Bangbang]

I've a better question...

Does he have nipples?

Or better yet does God a belly button.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Good point. This idea that there is no sex in heaven...I haven't heard this before. It sounds like one more good reason not to go.

Actually, we can have both. It is more or less a combination though and not "true" hermaphroditism. These people are called intersexed and their genitals are somewhat of a blend between the two. It happens more frequently than I'm sure you'd like to imagine. Perhaps you should read up on it.

I only learned in Biology class that earth worms are bisexual, and when two earth worm intercourse, they exchange sperms.

Human being? I have not seen a record of 'true' bisexual complete in both sexes in one human body. Some female may have oversize clitoris that may be considered as miniature form of penis, but unless hormone therapy and corrective surgery is performed, you cannot have a perfect bisexual single person.

 

[Elphineas]

Oops... I made the comment about nipples and forgot to follow it up with a point:



One of God’s titles, “El Shaddai”, says that God has nipples. El means “God”. Shaddai means “many breasts”, based upon the root word shad, meaning “breast”.



God’s either got a lotta boobies, or he has a giant set of ‘em. Either way - it’s hard not to have disturbing mental pictures.

 

[Elphineas]

In Job, God also has a womb.

 

[Elphineas]

Abraham God has to have it, since we are made after His image. The other 'minor' Gods under the Abraham God did come down to earth and have sex with human females if I am not mistaken as reported in the OT. So without question they or He had it.

Another way to look at it is that organ is also used for urination. So that is also a must have organ.

Och, and what am I? Eve was made in the image of God, also. She was Adam's clone without a "Y" chromosome.

This is not true. If I had my genitalia removed, I could still identifiably be a man due to other physical differences. Agreed this is extraordinary circumstances but then again, talking about God's balls or lack there of is fairly extraordinary as well.

Other than that, I agree with greatcalgarian .

Actually, that's a bit off. If you had been born without the male genitalia, you would not have been a male. But if you had your jewels, then had them cut off, you still would have had them at some point, so there would be no doubt that you were (are) a male.

As Jesus, God is a man. As God, God is Spirit and has no genitalia.

YHWH is called the "Living" God. In order to be called "living", a species must be able to reproduce. God is his own species. Therefore, if he is "living", he must be capable of reproduction.



On the other hand, in order for something to "exist" it must be composed of matter. God isn't composed of matter. So, he doesn't exist.



He just "is".



Perhaps God is "living" in the same way he is "existing" - in a way we cannot comprehend.

 

[Fluffy]

Actually, that's a bit off. If you had been born without the male genitalia, you would not have been a male. But if you had your jewels, then had them cut off, you still would have had them at some point, so there would be no doubt that you were (are) a male.

That's twisted logic isn't it? Is there any physical difference between either of those people assuming that the former grew to the same age as the latter? So why should one be considered male over the other?

 

[Elphineas]

That's twisted logic isn't it? Is there any physical difference between either of those people assuming that the former grew to the same age as the latter? So why should one be considered male over the other?

You've stumped me there. I think that what I was trying to say was something along the lines of:

If a human has no genitals, and no "Y" chromosome, it is not a male.

God has niether, and is therefore not a male.

 

[Ðanisty]

Human being? I have not seen a record of 'true' bisexual complete in both sexes in one human body. Some female may have oversize clitoris that may be considered as miniature form of penis, but unless hormone therapy and corrective surgery is performed, you cannot have a perfect bisexual single person.

I don't think you read what I wrote correctly. I agreed that there were no "true" hermaphrodites among humans (as in both complete sets of genitals). That does not mean that humans are always male or female. Some people are something in between. They have characteristics of both. Also, it is a bit more complicated than an oversized clitoris.