What evidence?
Are you basing your determination on some strict criteria of gender (presence/absence of certain chromosomes, type of genitalia, etc.), or are you basing it on stereotypical gender roles?
Are gods sexually dimorphic?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God is a woman - agree or disagree?
- Thread starter 14sammie41
- Start date
Are you basing your determination on some strict criteria of gender (presence/absence of certain chromosomes, type of genitalia, etc.), or are you basing it on stereotypical gender roles?
Are gods sexually dimorphic?
I don't believe in the literal existence of either the christian, jewish, or islamic "Gods". However, as one who is convinced of the literal existence of and who is in league with One I call the Prince of Darkness (the English word Prince is derived from the Latin word princeps which means "first" or "First Principle.) To me the Prince of Darkness is a purely meta-physical Being unto itSelf, hence, It has no biological gender. However, from a mythological stance It does seem to possess more masculine qualities, cases in point, Set, Satan, Lucifer, Prometheus, etc., were all depected as "males". Then again, in other mythologies It seems to possess both masculine and femanine qualities, of course though, all these mythologies were and have been created by humans, who seem to be rather fond of, when creating their god forms, endowing them with human genitalia.
/Adramelek\
/Adramelek\
Last edited:
No its not like that. In some languages 'he' is used as a default. As i understand Arabic is one of those languages.
What are "masculine and feminine qualities"?
Webster's dictionary gives a fairly good difinition of both.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:biglaugh:
Ok, ok... I know your seeking my own personal philosophical percpective on the matter. Perhaps if you could shared with me some of your views on the subject it would help to activate my own philosophical mode.
Well, my view is that most of what we consider to be "masculine" and "feminine" traits are mainly based on stereotypes. All of the traits that are left are based on things like sexual dimorphism and actual behavioural traits, and most of these vary even from species to species: there are species where the female is the one who's bigger and stronger, and even species where the male gives birth to the young.Ok, ok... I know your seeking my own personal philosophical percpective on the matter. Perhaps if you could shared with me some of your views on the subject it would help to activate my own philosophical mode.
Basically, I can't think of anything other than chromosomes and gonads that actually distinguishes male from female across the board.
So, for instance, if we had a hypothetical god who was big, strong and aggressive and interpreted these traits to be "masculine", we'd be implicitly saying that this god is more like a human than, for instance, a bullfrog.
IMO, inferring that a god is "masculine" or "feminine" based on its characteristics is either:
- based in false stereotypes of human cultural gender "ideals"
- based in anthromorphism... i.e. a false idea that the god in question is like a human
Masculine = strength, sterdiness, giver of the seed of life, agression, the conquerer and protector...
Feminine = strength, gentleness, kindness, bearer of life, agression, also conquerer and protector...
Just one mans opinion, but of course both genders can posses the qualities of each except for the giver of the life-seed and the bearer of life.
Feminine = strength, gentleness, kindness, bearer of life, agression, also conquerer and protector...
Just one mans opinion, but of course both genders can posses the qualities of each except for the giver of the life-seed and the bearer of life.
Last edited:
Among other things, a masculine god would be single-minded and a feminine god would be multiple-opinioned. Thus, the Biblical account of the creator as male is emotionally and psychologically implausible. Here's why:
It is sometimes said that men tend to be more consistent -- or more one-tracked -- in their view of the world than do women. And, likewise, it is sometimes said that women are more likely to have multiple (and sometimes conflicting) views of the same thing than are men. That is, some folks think men tend to be single-minded while women tend to have multiple opinions about the same things.
Let's suppose, for the sake of discussion, that there is some truth to that notion.
If so, perhaps it traces back to neurochemistry. One biological difference between men and women is that, over the course of a month, men cycle through only one dominant hormone -- testosterone -- while women cycle through at least four dominant hormones. That is, at any time during a given month, testosterone is the dominant hormone for males. But, depending on the time of month, four or more hormones are successively dominant in females.
As you know, hormones are like alcohol. Each hormone not only changes how we feel, but also changes what we see.
Consequently, there might actually be a biological basis for the old notion that men are more single minded than women, and that women are more multiple-opinioned than men.
Now, if all of the above has at least some truth to it, then a masculine god would be single minded, and a feminine god would be multiple-opinioned. Or, to put it poetically, a masculine god would be like a cultivated field of corn in which only one plant thrived -- corn. And a feminine god would be like a wild meadow in which many different species existed within the context of an ecosystem.
Now, in most of the world's creation stories, the creator is either genderless or is female. That makes sense, on some level, because women are the gender that give birth. But in the Biblical story -- as it is usually told -- the creator is male. That's odd.
However, let's look at that story more closely. The creator may be male in the Bible, but he is acting as a female in bringing forth creation. Men do not give birth. Women do. And men do not give birth to diversity. Women do. The world of nature is a very diverse world. It is nothing like a monocrop field of corn, but it is a wildness of many species.
So, in conclusion, I think something very strange went on in the Bible when its authors decided to represent the creator as male. But I offer all of the above as mere speculation and not as anything to be absolutely sworn by. After all, if there is any truth to what I've written here, then the tendency to see things as absolutes would be a male tendency, and not a female tendency.
outhouse
Atheistically
historically speaking god is definatly a man [our father who art in heaven] as there is a very high proabability the he had a wife. Ancient hebrews were not monotheistic at first. They created many gods
it is my opinion the abrahamic god was created male with a wife and combined with other deity's in early ancient hebrews culture. All but the father were tossed aside with judaism moving to a monothesitic platform.
God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible -- Almost : Discovery News
God had a wife, Asherah, whom the Book of Kings suggests was worshiped alongside Yahweh in his temple in Israel, according to an Oxford scholar.
You might know him as Yahweh, Allah or God. But on this fact, Jews, Muslims and Christians, the people of the great Abrahamic religions, are agreed: There is only one of Him," writes Stavrakopoulou in a statement released to the British media. "He is a solitary figure, a single, universal creator, not one God among many ... or so we like to believe."
rememebr god man man in "OUR" image, having a wife makes perfect sense out of this early scripture
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
I understand where you coming from but
are you to deny ancient hebrews did not clearly write him in as male?
you might find before the historic events of 586 B.C its spelled out pretty clear
Masculine and feminine qualities are also largely defined primarily by the biological chemicals of testosterone and estrogen.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
which I cannot find that this has anything to do with this debate
What about the characteristics that are based in honest stereotypes, like human psychological archetypes? Do they just not count?
Last edited:
