Does God need gender?

[Avoice1C]

Okay, I can more or less go along with that, but do you believe Jesus was God? You're a Christian. I assume that you do. So if God is spirit, and spirit is not corporeal, and Jesus was corporeal, when how could Jesus be God?

At any rate, I would agree that if you worship God in spirit, you are worshiping Him with the energy within you. I personally think of spirit as implying life, i.e. a life force, that which makes us self-aware and causes us to be drawn to our Creator. I don't think that the statement that God is spirit is intended to say mean that God is just an invisible force. I see "spirit" as being one of His attributes, and not a definition of Him per se.

It is my Opinion that Jesus was flesh & blood on this earth. He obeyed God the Father throughout his life even unto death. He became God when he was raised from the dead. He was man. He is God.
I see God the Father as a Spirit without corporeal form. Jesus had corporeal form and can retake it.

 

[Katzpur]

It is my Opinion that Jesus was flesh & blood on this earth. He obeyed God the Father throughout his life even unto death. He became God when he was raised from the dead. He was man. He is God.

That's interesting. Well, I'd be the last person on earth to tell you that your beliefs are not "Christian" as I frequently get that from other people myself. And if someone professes to be a Christian, I accept that. But I think you're probably aware that most Christians believe He was God from the beginning. As you know, John 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." Could you explain your interpretation of that passage?

I see God the Father as a Spirit without corporeal form.

Do you make a distinction between God the Father and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit)? In your view, are they both a single spirit, known by both terms?

Jesus had corporeal form and can retake it.

Well, yes, we know that He had a corporeal form when He ascended into Heaven. Are you saying it comes and goes as He wills it?

I'm curious if you affiliate with any specific denomination within Christianity. I guess I'm just wondering which Christians believe Jesus did not become God until after His resurrection.

 

[Reaper]

Cougarbear- Seems deceptive to me. Why would God wish to deceive us? No, I think he appears with all body, parts and passions because he has all that. I see no reason that it's beneath God to be able to procreate. Why is it that people think this?

How is appearing a certain way deceptive? It's for the comfort of humans, not to deceive.
Also where did I say it's beneath God to procreate? I mean sure, it's not really necessary but whatever.

 

[Cougarbear]

My understanding of the passage I quoted was that it was referring to God the Father. I think that when people say that God has no gender, they are speaking of God the Father, and not of His Son, Jesus Christ. I personally feel that it's pretty much fruitless for us to try to figure out such things as how God created our spirits. All I was suggesting was that the creation of our spirits would not seem to require that someone be pregnant for nine months and then give birth. If God was once as we are now, He would have definitely used His eyes, ears, mouth, hands, feet, etc. as we do at that time.

Personally, I find early Christian documents to be invaluable in understanding the 1st and 2nd century Church. As many Church leaders have said, we need to embrace truth, regardless of its source. I certainly don't think we have an monopoly on truth, and I'm not sure what we can expect to gain by sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to consider information that is available to us (such as the Clementine Homilies). I'm pretty such that LDS scholars at BYU make extensive use of them in trying to understand the Great Apostasy.

(I'm starting to think that you and I may have a few differences of opinion other than our BYU-Utah rivalry. I consider myself to be an active, believing Latter-day Saint, but you may have noticed that to the right of my avatar and under my user name, I describe myself as "Not your average Mormon." You might also have noticed my "signature" (the quote from Rudyard Kipling). It says a lot about me. It implies (or is meant to) that I think for myself and don't just buy into everything I hear spoken from the pulpil. At any rate, I may well be one of those terrible "leftists" you mentioned in another post. That doesn't mean we can't see eye-to-eye on a great many things. But it probably does mean that we're going to occasionally be at odds with one another. Hopefully we'll be able to focus on our common ground and not get too awfully worked up when we disagree.)

To Mainstream Christianity God the Father and Jesus Christ are one in the same person. That’s the concept of the Christian Trinity. So, if you are going to align with them and conclude the Father has no body, parts or passion, you can’t claim to follow Latter-Day Prophets. Which I will follow and take the words of the prophets than a writing of hearsay. We are spirit children of our Father in Heaven is doctrinal.

As to understanding the pre-existence is paramount to the fullness of the Gospel. We must know who we are, why we are here, where we come from and where are we going. I hope you can overcome your liberalism because it will separate you in the long run from your Covenants made in the Temple with God. Be careful my brother.

 

[Cougarbear]

How is appearing a certain way deceptive? It's for the comfort of humans, not to deceive.
Also where did I say it's beneath God to procreate? I mean sure, it's not really necessary but whatever.

That’s a science fiction point of view that God has to appear as he isn’t. Is he a monster? If he appears to us he will appear as he is, our Father. And he clarified this by saying we look like he does, made in his image. Why make up something that isn’t scriptural.
I was saying that why is it people can’t believe God himself procreates or has sex with his wife? Why is this blasphemy?

 

[dfnj]

The traditional Abrahamic god is regarded as male though many Christian theologians seem to regard Him as both and neither. Many Pagans believe in a male God and female Goddess as a great cosmic duality (however the role of the God has diminished over time).

My question is does the concept of a genderless god exist in any tradition? And if it did, would our language need to impose gender on it, since in English personhood is always gendered?

Non-existence was in God's left hand, and the Big Bang was the result of what was happening in God's right hand. So yes, God was a male. And since our Big Bang is the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension, then energy in the Universe is God sperm which will eventually give birth to new space-time dimensions through stars collapsing into black holes.

 

[Cougarbear]

Non-existence was in God's left hand, and the Big Bang was the result of what was happening in God's right hand. So yes, God was a male. And since our Big Bang is the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension, then energy in the Universe is God sperm which will eventually give birth to new space-time dimensions through stars collapsing into black holes.

And where is your evidence? By the way, a black hole has nothing to do with dimensions.

 

[dfnj]

And where is your evidence? By the way, a black hole has nothing to do with dimensions.

At the moment of the Big Bang there was zero volume. When a star collapses to black hole it has zero volume. Zero volume equals zero volume is my evidence. I did not invent this idea:

"Another interesting idea put forth by physicists, is that a white hole might explain the Big Bang, since this is another situation where a tremendous amount of matter and energy spontaneously appeared."

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-white-holes.html

 

[Katzpur]

To Mainstream Christianity God the Father and Jesus Christ are one in the same person. That’s the concept of the Christian Trinity. So, if you are going to align with them and conclude the Father has no body, parts or passion, you can’t claim to follow Latter-Day Prophets. Which I will follow and take the words of the prophets than a writing of hearsay. We are spirit children of our Father in Heaven is doctrinal.

Whoa! First off, calm down! Secondly, don't put words in my mouth. I don't believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one and the same. I believe they are physically distinct from each other and that both of them have glorified, immortal bodies of flesh and bone. I believe they love each and every one of us and know us personally. I believe God hears and answers our prayers. I believe Jesus Christ atoned for my sins in Gethsemane and on Calvary, that He rose from the dead on the third day and stands today on the right hand of His Father. I never, ever, ever said "the Father has no body part or passions." I have never advocated a belief in the Trinity.

As to understanding the pre-existence is paramount to the fullness of the Gospel. We must know who we are, why we are here, where we come from and where are we going.

I believe I understand our pre-mortal life every bit as well as you do. I know who I am (a spirit daughter of my Heavenly Father), why I'm here (to gain a physical body and to live in such a way that I can, through the grace of His Son and the support of the Holy Ghost, reach my full potential), where I come from (His presence) and where I'm going (back to His presence). My understanding of the Plan of Salvation is fundamental to how I live my life -- which I hope is with integrity and respect for all of God's children (even conservatives ).

I hope you can overcome your liberalism because it will separate you in the long run from your Covenants made in the Temple with God.

Get off your self-righteous high horse, and stop calling me to repentance. There is a place for both liberals and conservatives in the Church. For you to assume that a Mormon with liberal leanings needs to "overcome" them is so judgmental, it's not even funny. If I were you, I'd start paying some serious attention to that beam in your eye. It's causing some significant problems with the way you see other people, especially your fellow Mormons. Each of us is unique, and I don't deserve your condemnation. My salvation is between me and God. It's not between me and my bishop, me and my stake president, or me and the prophet. And trust me -- your take on my worthiness is not going to enter into the equation at all!

Be careful my brother.

I am not your brother. I am your sister -- a strong, intelligent LDS woman who isn't afraid to express her opinion and who doesn't take kindly to being talked down to.

 

[RabbiO]

@Katzpur -

Obviously you and I stand at opposite sides of a very wide and very deep theological chasm. I do appreciate, however, reading an articulate, reasoned and passionate defense of oneself and one's position.

 

[Katzpur]

@Katzpur -

Obviously you and I stand at opposite sides of a very wide and very deep theological chasm. I do appreciate, however, reading an articulate, reasoned and passionate defense of oneself and one's position.

Thank you so much, @RabbiO!

 

[Valjean]

Humans imagine an anthropomorphic God. We have sexual dimorphism, so God must, too? What hubris!

With billions of stars in our own galaxy, and billions of other galaxies, are we the only species in the universe with a God concept? Shouldn't others be included in the debate?

How do three-sex species conceive of God? How do non-sexual, parthenogenic species? How about sequentially hermaphroditic people or species with complex reproductive strategies involving host species?

This topic assumes all of creation has two sexes to choose from. This isn't universally true even on Earth. What if only one in a billion civilizations has two sexes like ours? Are their concepts of God less valid? Is this whole discussion not absurdly parochial?

Look at the big picture.

 

[RabbiO]

Thank you so much, @RabbiO!

Hopefully my compliment, and your acceptance of it, will not be taken by someone as further evidence of your "apostasy"!

I wish you well.

 

[Avoice1C]

That's interesting. Well, I'd be the last person on earth to tell you that your beliefs are not "Christian" as I frequently get that from other people myself. And if someone professes to be a Christian, I accept that. But I think you're probably aware that most Christians believe He was God from the beginning. As you know, John 1:1-2 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." Could you explain your interpretation of that passage?

In my review of The Basics of New Testament Syntax there are 3 ways to view the passage dependent on word order. In the Greek, it actually says:, “God was the word”. We tend to use other passages to switch the word order to “the Word was God.” My choice of God was the Word goes more in line with the creation story when God says: “Let there be light!” Jesus is God’s voice in creating what was created.

Do you make a distinction between God the Father and the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit)? In your view, are they both a single spirit, known by both terms?

Pretty much. God powers all things good and those who choose evil. He approaches believers as all light and goodness as does His Son. As such He is God the Father.

Well, yes, we know that He had a corporeal form when He ascended into Heaven. Are you saying it comes and goes as He wills it?

Yes

I'm curious if you affiliate with any specific denomination within Christianity. I guess I'm just wondering which Christians believe Jesus did not become God until after His resurrection.

He could not be fully man and fully God at the same time. He either had to face the temptations of man or, as God, be immune to them. As such, he would not serve as an example to man, but as an excuse for sin. I belong to the Church of Christ (not the mormons). And my view came about in a debate with my local Church's preacher. It was a view we came into agreement on.

 

[Cougarbear]

Whoa! First off, calm down! Secondly, don't put words in my mouth. I don't believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are one and the same. I believe they are physically distinct from each other and that both of them have glorified, immortal bodies of flesh and bone. I believe they love each and every one of us and know us personally. I believe God hears and answers our prayers. I believe Jesus Christ atoned for my sins in Gethsemane and on Calvary, that He rose from the dead on the third day and stands today on the right hand of His Father. I never, ever, ever said "the Father has no body part or passions." I have never advocated a belief in the Trinity.

Cougarbear: Based on some of your comments, it did not sound like you believed totally in the separate Godhead.

I believe I understand our pre-mortal life every bit as well as you do. I know who I am (a spirit daughter of my Heavenly Father), why I'm here (to gain a physical body and to live in such a way that I can, through the grace of His Son and the support of the Holy Ghost, reach my full potential), where I come from (His presence) and where I'm going (back to His presence). My understanding of the Plan of Salvation is fundamental to how I live my life -- which I hope is with integrity and respect for all of God's children (even conservatives ).

Cougarbear: See above

Get off your self-righteous high horse, and stop calling me to repentance. There is a place for both liberals and conservatives in the Church. For you to assume that a Mormon with liberal leanings needs to "overcome" them is so judgmental, it's not even funny. If I were you, I'd start paying some serious attention to that beam in your eye. It's causing some significant problems with the way you see other people, especially your fellow Mormons. Each of us is unique, and I don't deserve your condemnation. My salvation is between me and God. It's not between me and my bishop, me and my stake president, or me and the prophet. And trust me -- your take on my worthiness is not going to enter into the equation at all!

Cougarbear: For a long time, liberalism simply were those who believed in small government and the right to choose one's own path in life. But, for the past 100 years, progressivism (a nice name for socialism) has infiltrated into the left of center in the political realm. Today, we can see in our colleges and universities communist ideas based on Aulinsky and his "Rules for Radicals" has taken over. It's actually kind of a battle between communists and fascists. The liberals are now radicals pushing socialism which exists in Putin's Russia. So if you are a liberal, what kind of liberal are you because liberals of old are now conservatives and libertarians of the present?

I am not your brother. I am your sister -- a strong, intelligent LDS woman who isn't afraid to express her opinion and who doesn't take kindly to being talked down to.

Cougarbear: No picture to know this. And, I have never met a women who was afraid to express her opinion. And, if you write something that appears to be socialist or today's liberalism, I'll question that. But, I don't think I condemned you. I think you got all hyper as liberal Democrats do these days over nothing ;-)

 

[Cougarbear]

At the moment of the Big Bang there was zero volume. When a star collapses to black hole it has zero volume. Zero volume equals zero volume is my evidence. I did not invent this idea:

"Another interesting idea put forth by physicists, is that a white hole might explain the Big Bang, since this is another situation where a tremendous amount of matter and energy spontaneously appeared."

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-white-holes.html

Cougarbear: Zero volume? There is still a "star" called the singularity. There is still matter. It's just you can't see it because of the event horizon's curvature of space doesn't allow the light to escape.
Also, please explain nothingness. Are you suggesting their is a "wall" at the most outer parts of the universe? Or, did the big bang explode into empty space?

 

[Cougarbear]

Humans imagine an anthropomorphic God. We have sexual dimorphism, so God must, too? What hubris!

With billions of stars in our own galaxy, and billions of other galaxies, are we the only species in the universe with a God concept? Shouldn't others be included in the debate?

How do three-sex species conceive of God? How do non-sexual, parthenogenic species? How about sequentially hermaphroditic people or species with complex reproductive strategies involving host species?

This topic assumes all of creation has two sexes to choose from. This isn't universally true even on Earth. What if only one in a billion civilizations has two sexes like ours? Are their concepts of God less valid? Is this whole discussion not absurdly parochial?

Look at the big picture.

Cougarbear: We are literal spirit children of our Heavenly Father. We were place in bodies that continue our likeness in our Father's image (Mother too). This makes us different than other species. We are of the fold of Heavenly Parents. All other species are not. We are not descended from apes or ape-like creatures either. Nor, are we descended from those silly ape-human looking bones people have dug up. So, if there are other intelligent beings in the universe, and I believe there are, they will also be like us too in the likeness of our Heavenly Parents, heterosexual only There is no homosexual. There are heterosexual and then heterosexuals with a reprobate mind doing evil

 

[Cougarbear]

In my review of The Basics of New Testament Syntax there are 3 ways to view the passage dependent on word order. In the Greek, it actually says:, “God was the word”. We tend to use other passages to switch the word order to “the Word was God.” My choice of God was the Word goes more in line with the creation story when God says: “Let there be light!” Jesus is God’s voice in creating what was created.



Pretty much. God powers all things good and those who choose evil. He approaches believers as all light and goodness as does His Son. As such He is God the Father.



Yes

He could not be fully man and fully God at the same time. He either had to face the temptations of man or, as God, be immune to them. As such, he would not serve as an example to man, but as an excuse for sin. I belong to the Church of Christ (not the mormons). And my view came about in a debate with my local Church's preacher. It was a view we came into agreement on.

Cougarbear: John 10:32 - 39
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

He was God. God the Son but not God the Father or God the Holy Ghost. You are a god too. Jesus said so. By the way, the scripture he was referring to was Psalms 82:6.

 

[Katzpur]

Cougarbear: No picture to know this.

It says in my profile that I'm a woman.

And, if you write something that appears to be socialist or today's liberalism, I'll question that.

Yeah, well what exactly did I say that "appeared to be socialist" anyway? We weren't even talking politics; we were talking about whether God needed a gender or not. You're the one who decided to try to derail the thread and turn it into a political rant against me.

But, I don't think I condemned you.

You accused me of aligning myself with non-Mormon doctrine and you told me that my "liberalism... will separate [me]...from [my] Covenants made in the Temple with God." That, my dear self-righteous brother, is utter nonsense. One's political leanings have absolutely nothing to do with one's commitments to keeping one's temple covenants. You are absolutely full of it and about as judgmental of a Latter-day Saint as I've ever run across.

I think you got all hyper as liberal Democrats do these days over nothing ;-)

Good grief. I'm not even a Democrat, much less a "liberal Democrat." I am politically unaffiliated; I vote for the person, not the party, and have never once in my life voted a straight ticket. I suggest you stop obsessing over what you perceive my political persuasion to be and that you stop making absurd comments about my ability or inclination to keep my temple covenants. And I thought our BYU-Utah rivalry was going to be our biggest conflict.

I suppose I'll see you around. Can't say I'm looking forward to it, though. Anyway, I'm off for the evening. I'm headed to the Jordan River Temple for the 7:00 session. (Do you think they'll let me in if I tell them I didn't vote for Trump?)

 

[Avoice1C]

Cougarbear: John 10:32 - 39
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

He was God. God the Son but not God the Father or God the Holy Ghost. You are a god too. Jesus said so. By the way, the scripture he was referring to was Psalms 82:6.

Then you are saying to me he never faced any temptation without foreknowledge of his Godhood. That would mean we humans have no hope of ever being like him or living a life like he lived because being a god is not being God.