Does God Really Have a Gender/Sex?

[Wherenextcolumbus]

every ship has one captain and one 2nd mate. Every football team has one Captain and one vice captain. Every kitchen has one head chef, Why? Because you can't have two heads.... you need one head making the decisions and one to support them.

If you think its weakness to submit, I'd say you are wrong. It takes a very strong person to submit and women are stronger then men when it comes to submitting. ( that might explain why the nations and their male heads are always at war with each other, but thats another thread entirely )




that may be mens views, but that view doesnt come from the bible or the God I worship. The bible praises women who reach out and do great things. There are many examples in the bible of women who were very influential and women who brought down kings and saved entire nations from being wiped out.

But that doesnt mean they have to act like men and try to take over the role of men in society. Men have a role to fill and so do women. When they work together the way they are supposed to (according to the bibles definition of the male/feminine roles) they can both fill their roles and do good for society.

I think its a mistake to take the feminist view as the only right view. Their view is that women should take the role of men in society. I think thats wrong and I wont join in with that wrong view.

I disagree with this, there are many happy relationships where there is no "head." Couples can sit down and have a conversation if they are stuck on a decision and come to a conclusion together sometimes they will end up going with the mans idea sometimes the woman's or compromise so both partners get a bit of what they want. I don't see what is so bad about that.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I disagree with this, there are many happy relationships where there is no "head." Couples can sit down and have a conversation if they are stuck on a decision and come to a conclusion together sometimes they will end up going with the mans idea sometimes the woman's or compromise so both partners get a bit of what they want. I don't see what is so bad about that.

It isn't bad. Proponents of traditional gender roles tend to present theological assumptions as support for their argument or tend to present various authoritarian hierarchies as support.

What is glossed over are the many roundtable democratic associations and societies that operate without a clear head. The only argument against them from traditionalists are that such arrangements are messier and take longer, and therefore fall back on how complimentary gender roles are more efficient and take less time.

Doesn't matter if males feel overwhelmed with having all the responsibility rest on their shoulders or if females feel marginalized and disregarded for not having any decision-making power in these relationships. Efficiency, religious doctrine, and habit trumps all feelings in traditionalist relationships where one or both partners are unhappy with the arrangement.

So, yes, I disagree too that this is how all marriages should work throughout the entire length of the marriage. Regardless of circumstance, orientation, personality, or the state of health physically or mentally of one or both spouses.

My answer to the OP? I don't believe in a creator God. I feel very out of place when I attempt to adopt an anthropomorphized deity as an entity I revere or worship. Therefore, it logically follows that I don't see a legitimate gender assigned to an objectively existing deity. I think we as humans write the stories and wish to identify our unknown place in the Void. Many cultures in the past who have contributed to major religious writings by men in patriarchal cultures would very logically attribute a male gender to God, and especially when they de-humanize women and wonder whether or not women even have a soul.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

It isn't bad. Proponents of traditional gender roles tend to present theological assumptions as support for their argument or tend to present various authoritarian hierarchies as support.

What is glossed over are the many roundtable democratic associations and societies that operate without a clear head. The only argument against them from traditionalists are that such arrangements are messier and take longer, and therefore fall back on how complimentary gender roles are more efficient and take less time.

Doesn't matter if males feel overwhelmed with having all the responsibility rest on their shoulders or if females feel marginalized and disregarded for not having any decision-making power in these relationships. Efficiency, religious doctrine, and habit trumps all feelings in traditionalist relationships where one or both partners are unhappy with the arrangement.

So, yes, I disagree too that this is how all marriages should work throughout the entire length of the marriage. Regardless of circumstance, orientation, personality, or the state of health physically or mentally of one or both spouses.

My answer to the OP? I don't believe in a creator God. I feel very out of place when I attempt to adopt an anthropomorphized deity as an entity I revere or worship. Therefore, it logically follows that I don't see a legitimate gender assigned to an objectively existing deity. I think we as humans write the stories and wish to identify our unknown place in the Void. Many cultures in the past who have contributed to major religious writings by men in patriarchal cultures would very logically attribute a male gender to God, and especially when they de-humanize women and wonder whether or not women even have a soul.

There is this misconception that feminists want a complete role reversal. I do not want to be "like a man" thank you. I want compromise.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

There is this misconception that feminists want a complete role reversal. I do not want to be "like a man" thank you. I want compromise.

I think it's okay if role-reversal is consensual and it works for the couple. There are also people who are born assigned female who wish to transition to male, and therefore I support his freedom and right to transition and to be "like a man."

I get what you're saying, though. I agree that the misconception exists, and that the notion is that because feminists identify the abuse of a distinct and overreaching patriarchal paradigm, we want to fight fire with fire and we all want to have female privilege while tearing a man down. That simply isn't true.

 

[psychoslice]

Maybe the so called big bang was God's orgasm ?.

 

[Sir Doom]

Maybe the so called big bang was God's orgasm ?.

...and God saw that it was good. And then God's mom walked in and he freaked out and hid his gym sock in a panic.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I think it's okay if role-reversal is consensual and it works for the couple. There are also people who are born assigned female who wish to transition to male, and therefore I support his freedom and right to transition and to be "like a man."

I get what you're saying, though. I agree that the misconception exists, and that the notion is that because feminists identify the abuse of a distinct and overreaching patriarchal paradigm, we want to fight fire with fire and we all want to have female privilege while tearing a man down. That simply isn't true.

By "like a man" I meant in the socially constructed patriarchal sense, in that sense I don't want to be "like a man" I wasn't referring to literal sex or gender identity.

 

[psychoslice]

...and God saw that it was good. And then God's mom walked in and he freaked out and hid his gym sock in a panic.

Or his pie in the sky lol.

 

[Vinayaka]

In Hinduism, generally God is considered genderless. Representations may have gender. It may vary from sect to sect. God can also be formless. with form, or both formless and with form.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

By "like a man" I meant in the socially constructed patriarchal sense, in that sense I don't want to be "like a man" I wasn't referring to literal sex or gender identity.

Oh I got what you meant. I didn't think you were talking about gender identity, either. I just felt it needed to be said, that's all.

 

[Absolute Zero]

Omnipotent beings are 'ignorant' of necessity. They have every whim instantly validated. Thus, everything they do must be for aesthetic reasons. There is no other reason to do anything. So, that's why an omnipotent being (such as the Christian God) might have a gender. Because it likes it that way.

LoL this sounds the most logical

 

[Pegg]

I disagree with this, there are many happy relationships where there is no "head." Couples can sit down and have a conversation if they are stuck on a decision and come to a conclusion together sometimes they will end up going with the mans idea sometimes the woman's or compromise so both partners get a bit of what they want. I don't see what is so bad about that.

there's nothing bad about that, thats exactly what the bible promotes. At times God has told his servants to listen to the voice of their wife when making a decision.

marriage is a partnership, it is an equal partnership but both play different roles.

 

[Pegg]

I always found it funny the idea that Men have a role and Women have a role, as if those roles aren't defined by societies that change. It's even more interesting when you discover societies and cultures that exist that have women doing the supposed roles that men were supposed to do and vice versa.

As for God, well when God took human form and came to speak to Abraham he was a man, so I figure God must be male? Or has a penchant for male forms?

some roles are biologically determined. Can a new father produce the milk the baby needs for example?

Obviously there are some roles more suited to a woman then to a man, and some roles more suited to a man then a woman purely through biological differences.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

there's nothing bad about that, thats exactly what the bible promotes. At times God has told his servants to listen to the voice of their wife when making a decision.

marriage is a partnership, it is an equal partnership but both play different roles.

So in what ways is the man a leader and the woman a supporter but both have an equal voice?

 

[Pegg]

So in what ways is the man a leader and the woman a supporter but both have an equal voice?

he is the family guide, protector & provider. He carries the responsibility of family goals and he is the leader and initiator of them. The woman responds to his lead and does whats needed to reach those goals...and if it weren't for her support and assistance, very little would be accomplished.

When you take that away from a man, what is left for him to do in the family?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

some roles are biologically determined. Can a new father produce the milk the baby needs for example?

Obviously there are some roles more suited to a woman then to a man, and some roles more suited to a man then a woman purely through biological differences.

Men can lactate...notice we have nipples.

 

[Pegg]

Men can lactate...notice we have nipples.

lol, right )(

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

lol, right )(

Lol but seriously even in the animal kingdom you will find that some males will lactate in order to help with feeding the infant.

Sea horse males carry the eggs after fertilization.

Male roles/Female roles are societal, there are biological differences, but those don't necessarily necessitate the social roles.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

he is the family guide, protector & provider. He carries the responsibility of family goals and he is the leader and initiator of them. The woman responds to his lead and does whats needed to reach those goals...and if it weren't for her support and assistance, very little would be accomplished.

When you take that away from a man, what is left for him to do in the family?

He supports and assists her when need be. Nothing is taken away. There are just more opportunities for him to take on various roles if/when he is incapable or unwilling to lead. He can lead. He can also follow.

Same as a woman.

I could ask the same thing that when you take away leadership opportunities for a woman, what is left for her to do?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

he is the family guide, protector & provider. He carries the responsibility of family goals and he is the leader and initiator of them. The woman responds to his lead and does whats needed to reach those goals...and if it weren't for her support and assistance, very little would be accomplished.

When you take that away from a man, what is left for him to do in the family?

What do you mean by the man is the protector and provider?
He carries the responsibility of family goals how? Like he decides things like if the family will move house? If the family will go on holiday?
The wife supports by packing the luggage? The man books the tickets?
I seriously don't understand...