If god was female

[allfoak]

Thank you for restating what I already said.



Please address this part.

What for?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

....women stayed home to raise the babies. Mom looked after the home and Dad earned a living so that they had food on the table and a pleasant home environment to live in.

That's a '50s construct, and it's unworkable now since most families aren't able to survive on one income these days. It's also mingled with consumerist crap. In the real "old days", most people lived on farms or generally in rural areas with their extended families and everyone did work. Granny and grandpa lived with you, there weren't any nursing homes. There was no cars and so on.

So if you want to go back to the real old days, you better go live out in the country on farm or ranchland. You'll see how much work everyone has to do then. Everyone pitched in with raising the children, too. The "nuclear family" is modern nonsense.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

What for?

You claim to be able to object to my argument, if you wish to continue that claim then address the argument instead of restating what I already had said.

 

[arthra]

If god had been created as a female by the authors of the Bible instead of a male, would women have been treated very differently over the centuries? In my opinion, god was only given the male gender because in the ancient world men were considered to be superior to the female.

If any god does exist it is more likely to be genderless.

Yeah I can see that... In societies that were more matriarchal women tended to have a higher status..while patriarchal societies men were more dominant and tended to exploit women as the "weaker" sex, etc. and some of these sexist attitudes came to be reflected in religion.

One of the early heroines in the Baha'i Faith was a poetess named Tahirih. She stood up for her beliefs in the face of a male dominated society in Iran... During a conference in a place called Badasht, she removed her veil and shocked some of the more conservative men present.. One cut his throat ... She was later placed under house arrest and was strangled as men believed at the time shedding women's blood was a sin. Her last words were these:

"You can kill me as soon as you like, but you cannot stop the emancipation of women."

and she was strangled and thrown down into a well.

Read more about her here:

Fatimih Begum Baraghani, Tahirih (The Pure) (1817 - 1852) - Genealogy

 

[allfoak]

You claim to be able to object to my argument, if you wish to continue that claim then address the argument instead of restating what I already had said.

I am not here to amuse you.
I said what i said, if you disagree then deal with it.
Produce evidence of your own claim.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

I am not here to amuse you.
I said what i said, if you disagree then deal with it.
Produce evidence of your own claim.

Trying to switch the burden of proof is a fallacy that harms your argument more than helps it.

 

[allfoak]

Trying to switch the burden of proof is a fallacy that harms your argument more than helps it.

What argument?
Your the one arguing with me.
If you don't like what i said then provide your own proof.
I am not going to be told what to do by you because you don't like something i posted.

 

[Kenny]

That's a '50s construct, and it's unworkable now since most families aren't able to survive on one income these days. It's also mingled with consumerist crap. In the real "old days", most people lived on farms or generally in rural areas with their extended families and everyone did work. Granny and grandpa lived with you, there weren't any nursing homes. There was no cars and so on.

So if you want to go back to the real old days, you better go live out in the country on farm or ranchland. You'll see how much work everyone has to do then. Everyone pitched in with raising the children, too. The "nuclear family" is modern nonsense.

Not necessarily unworkable (although many times circumstances may dictate the need of it). In our case our decision was to adjust our living to a one income family so that more time would be invested in our children. The investment paid off with great relationships with our children, no teenage problems, no sleepless nights of worry etc.

The cost was the difficulties of going around with one car, no name brand clothing and other luxuries but then again, you can't buy peace of mind.

Our children now are happily married and also have chosen the same path. So not a 50's construct but rather a choice that has many advantages.

Perhaps, with the obvious family problems that are everywhere, maybe the "nuclear family" is what we need to return to? You don't need a farm to have a nuclear family.

 

[turbopro]

If god had been created as a female by the authors of the Bible instead of a male, would women have been treated very differently over the centuries?
Is there anyone on this forum who thinks men and women should stay trapped in the traditional roles society and religion had placed upon them?

Firstly, I am a non-believer; the god hypothesis, as proffered by most cultures, does not make sense to me.

Now, to answer your last question: As in life, with questions like these, perhaps there may not be an easy 'yes' or 'no' answer. Sex, Gender, and Sexuality are related but are not exactly the same. How these three interact to allow an individual to identify her/himself is complex. The cultural context plays a most significant role for the individual also.

There are reasons--and perhaps some good reasons--why society and religion place roles on the individual.

IMHO, this question, and questions like this one, require discussion and understanding. It's good that you bring it up for discussion.

 

[Ellejay]

If god had been created as a female by the authors of the Bible instead of a male, would women have been treated very differently over the centuries? In my opinion, god was only given the male gender because in the ancient world men were considered to be superior to the female.

If any god does exist it is more likely to be genderless.

Women featured in the Bible aren't treated well on the whole, but as reproductive machines for the most part. Solomon's many concubines obviously played a big part in keeping his dangly bits busy! Did they do it willingly, or more likely did they have no say in the matter? Whilst most Christian women these days demand to be treated as equal to men, more extreme male members of the faith still expect them to be subservient to their wishes using the Bible as an excuse.

There is very little woman can't do that men can, and visa versa. You never know, one day men might evolve enough to become pregnant!

Is there anyone on this forum who thinks men and women should stay trapped in the traditional roles society and religion had placed upon them?

I don't think God has a gender, He is both. The masculine form is used to describe the human race. I believe God portrayed women as helpers because it was an extremely physical world and in order to protect them he let the men know that they were in charge. Of course this was interpreted to mean men were higher beings. Don't be stupid, you came from us. We needed protection during that period. And for the most part we were, no thanks to the Catholics or Muslims for that matter. It's a different world now and as such God has updated his message and women are considered completely equal to their male counterparts. Baha'i faith. Educate yourself

 

[Deeje]

That's a '50s construct, and it's unworkable now since most families aren't able to survive on one income these days. It's also mingled with consumerist crap. In the real "old days", most people lived on farms or generally in rural areas with their extended families and everyone did work. Granny and grandpa lived with you, there weren't any nursing homes. There was no cars and so on.

And by and large, without all the mod cons, they were happy. Depression was not rampant and everyone took care of each other. There is definitely something to be said for a simple, self sufficient lifestyle.......
And don't get me started on nursing homes.

Consider what were "wants" compared to "needs" in rural areas in those days. Self sufficiency meant not relying on others to provide life's necessities. Today we have lost that self sufficiency.....we rely more and more on the system to provide for our needs.....and laughing all the way to the bank at our expense.

City living was always different and with the Industrial Revolution (as with most revolutionary events) the landscape changed dramatically.....and not for the better. Families became separated and "earning a living" replaced "self sufficiency". Consumerism was born and with it, the worship that has grown synonymously with capitalism......materialism.
"Needs" can be met....but "wants" are insatiable.The commercial world is like a never ending vending machine, catering to those insatiable "wants". (1 John 2:15-17)

So if you want to go back to the real old days, you better go live out in the country on farm or ranchland. You'll see how much work everyone has to do then. Everyone pitched in with raising the children, too. The "nuclear family" is modern nonsense.

I live in a rural area and I know what needs to be done on a farm. I have also lived in the city and I know which one is the better lifestyle, with a better quality of people, generally speaking. City folk walk around oblivious to anything or anyone that is outside of their "circle".
Country people are very different.....but the more city people move to the country to escape the rat race, the more they bring their 'ratty' behavior with them.

I see a future return to the way God intended for us to live......under the rule of God's Kingdom, cities will be dismantled and people will enjoy space and natural surroundings. They will enjoy peace and prosperity, not in a materialistic way, but in complete balance. Being spiritually rich has always been the way to true happiness. You can't buy it, and no one can take it away from you.

 

[Shad]

Perhaps, with the obvious family problems that are everywhere, maybe the "nuclear family" is what we need to return to? You don't need a farm to have a nuclear family.

I think it is lack of values to replace those behind a family based on marriage that is the major issue.

 

[Kenny]

I think it is lack of values to replace those behind a family based on marriage that is the major issue.

I would agree. Certainly Jesus gave a certain set of values to live life to the fullest (as I see it). Change the values, you change the results.

 

[Shad]

I would agree. Certainly Jesus gave a certain set of values to live life to the fullest (as I see it). Change the values, you change the results.

Sure for many religion provides those values, nothing wrong with that.

 

[Kenny]

Sure for many religion provides those values, nothing wrong with that.

As long as it doesn't include blowing yourself up in a Jihad to get to Heaven.

 

[Deeje]

As long as it doesn't include blowing yourself up in a Jihad to get to Heaven.

It seems to me that anyone who can blow themselves (or anyone else) up for any reason whatsoever is failing to obey the directives of Jesus Christ.
For Christians, if the Bible is our guide in life, then we must obey its guidelines and the teachings of the Master. Can killing ever be justified in their case?

The ancient Jews had a military force because they had territory to protect from ungodly invaders. No war that Israel fought could be without God's sanction. Those times when Israel fought wars without God's approval, their defeat was proof that He was not backing them.
There has not been a war since ancient times that had God's sanction....not one.

After the diaspora when the Jews spread outside of their homeland, there were no longer any borders to protect and invaders took over the holy land and its capital, as the prophets had foretold. When Jesus walked the earth, Rome was the ruling authority in Jerusalem. The Jews chafed under Roman rule and some even plotted an overthrow. Jesus however, never once advocated that his followers participate in such an uprising. He said that "the appointed times of the nations" had to run their full course before God would introduce his kingdom and put everything to right. (Luke 21:2-1-24)

Through the prophet Daniel, God foretold a succession of world powers who would hold ruling authority over his people. Beginning with Babylon, which held God's people captive for 70 years, he foretold that Medo-Persia would conquer Babylon and free God's people, even naming the ruler, Cyrus as the one who would ensure that a remnant of his people returned to their homeland. Medo-Persia was eventually conquered by Greece under Alexander the Great, but finally buckling under the might of Rome. In time Rome "fell" due to her own decadence and out of the ashes rose the British empire, in time she made an alliance with America in a dual world power that dominates to this day. This is where the prophesy gets interesting.....corrupt human rulership stops there....God's kingdom rulership takes over.

Speaking about these last "kings", Daniel 2:44 says:
“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever"

We are living in the time of the last human 'kings'. And no one who has shed innocent blood will qualify to be a citizen of that kingdom. Even their prayers were never heard by God. (Isaiah 1:15)

Jesus said we had to "love our enemies" and to "pray for those who persecute" us. (Matthew 5:43-48) There is no room there to shed the blood of another human being...ever.
Humans will often justify bloodshed by claiming "just wars"....but unless God says they are "just" there is no such thing in this day and age.

Whether God portrayed himself as male or female.....his standards remains the same. Though warmongering seems to be a male dominated trait, nationalism seems to even attract some women to the military. It breaks my heart to see little ones saying "goodbye" to their mommies going off to the Middle East who might never come home. What are mothers doing in the armed forces?!

Gender roles have become so screwed up these days that people can't seem to see what the big picture is all about....families. Males were given the role of "head of the household", not in a dictatorial role but one where the buck stops with him. He has to take the wishes and needs of his whole family into account when decisions are made.....he has the steering wheel and he has command of the controls. What happens when someone else tries to take the steering wheel out of his hands in mid journey? A crash is inevitable. God's way works. IMO, There is no such thing as "old fashioned" where God's commands are concerned.

 

[Kenny]

It seems to me that anyone who can blow themselves (or anyone else) up for any reason whatsoever is failing to obey the directives of Jesus Christ.
For Christians, if the Bible is our guide in life, then we must obey its guidelines and the teachings of the Master. Can killing ever be justified in their case?

Exactly. My point was simply "religion" doesn't necessarily mean correct.

The ancient Jews had a military force because they had territory to protect from ungodly invaders. No war that Israel fought could be without God's sanction. Those times when Israel fought wars without God's approval, their defeat was proof that He was not backing them.
There has not been a war since ancient times that had God's sanction....not one.

Not sure how you can come to that point. However, wars are always destructive. Life is always precious.

After the diaspora when the Jews spread outside of their homeland, there were no longer any borders to protect and invaders took over the holy land and its capital, as the prophets had foretold. When Jesus walked the earth, Rome was the ruling authority in Jerusalem. The Jews chafed under Roman rule and some even plotted an overthrow. Jesus however, never once advocated that his followers participate in such an uprising. He said that "the appointed times of the nations" had to run their full course before God would introduce his kingdom and put everything to right. (Luke 21:2-1-24)

Through the prophet Daniel, God foretold a succession of world powers who would hold ruling authority over his people. Beginning with Babylon, which held God's people captive for 70 years, he foretold that Medo-Persia would conquer Babylon and free God's people, even naming the ruler, Cyrus as the one who would ensure that a remnant of his people returned to their homeland. Medo-Persia was eventually conquered by Greece under Alexander the Great, but finally buckling under the might of Rome. In time Rome "fell" due to her own decadence and out of the ashes rose the British empire, in time she made an alliance with America in a dual world power that dominates to this day. This is where the prophesy gets interesting.....corrupt human rulership stops there....God's kingdom rulership takes over.

I agree with all the history, except one. Prophecy also dictated that Israel would be a nation again, and thus, borders once again as dictated n Amos 9:14-15.

However, the Kingdom of God is on the march and God's rulership will be complete.

Speaking about these last "kings", Daniel 2:44 says:
“In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever"

Agreed.

We are living in the time of the last human 'kings'. And no one who has shed innocent blood will qualify to be a citizen of that kingdom. Even their prayers were never heard by God. (Isaiah 1:15)

Not sure I can agree with that. Case study would be Saul of Tarsus (Paul). Having shed innocent blood, he still qualified to be a citizen of the Kingdom.

Jesus said we had to "love our enemies" and to "pray for those who persecute" us. (Matthew 5:43-48) There is no room there to shed the blood of another human being...ever.
Humans will often justify bloodshed by claiming "just wars"....but unless God says they are "just" there is no such thing in this day and age.

Understanding that life is valuable, I would still disagree. Jesus never told soldiers to put their swords down. John the Baptist only said to be content with the wages. Jesus is coming back and will destroy those who are against God. All of these are indications that sometimes one must defend oneself.

Whether God portrayed himself as male or female.....his standards remains the same. Though warmongering seems to be a male dominated trait, nationalism seems to even attract some women to the military. It breaks my heart to see little ones saying "goodbye" to their mommies going off to the Middle East who might never come home. What are mothers doing in the armed forces?!

Wars are horrible ... yes.

Gender roles have become so screwed up these days that people can't seem to see what the big picture is all about....families. Males were given the role of "head of the household", not in a dictatorial role but one where the buck stops with him. He has to take the wishes and needs of his whole family into account when decisions are made.....he has the steering wheel and he has command of the controls. What happens when someone else tries to take the steering wheel out of his hands in mid journey? A crash is inevitable. God's way works. IMO, There is no such thing as "old fashioned" where God's commands are concerned.

Agreed. This is God's best. Marriage is a picture of Jesus and the church and thus their respective rolls. However, we know that there are single parental families as well as families where the wife sanctifies the home through faith as she lives with an unbeliever (as the Bible calls it).

 

[Deeje]

Exactly. My point was simply "religion" doesn't necessarily mean correct.

Yes, religion is often an excuse to do what God condemns. Tell me what military operation is not backed by religion....? Being friends with those who disobey Christ puts a Christian at odds with God. (James 4:4)

Not sure how you can come to that point. However, wars are always destructive. Life is always precious.

God has never sanctioned the wars of modern times. So many innocents are killed as a result of bombs and other heinous weapons. To take an innocent life, one would have to answer to God. "Collateral damage" is a phrase invented by man, not God....."friendly fire" is a man made phrase too....excuses to kill indiscriminately. God doesn't accept excuses though.

Prophecy also dictated that Israel would be a nation again, and thus, borders once again as dictated n Amos 9:14-15.

When the Israelite rejected Jesus as their Messiah, Jesus said that this was the end for them as his people. They had continued to disobey him all through their history and he kept them in existence for the express purpose of fulfilling his promise to Abraham....to have his seed save the world. Once the seed came, the conduct of the Jews became intolerable.

Matthew 23:37-39:
Jesus said to the Pharisees....
“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”


He said that their house would be "abandoned"....and for good reason.

He was now free from his obligation to Israel and could choose a new nation of spiritual "Israelites"...the ones Paul called "the Israel of God" made up of both Jews and Gentiles. (Galatians 6:16; Acts 15:14)

Not sure I can agree with that. Case study would be Saul of Tarsus (Paul). Having shed innocent blood, he still qualified to be a citizen of the Kingdom.

Saul of Tarsus was a proud and arrogant man by his own admission, but he was zealous for the worship of his God....Jesus took that zeal and redirected it. The once arrogant Pharisee became a humble servant and disciple of Jesus Christ, renouncing his former course, he never lifted a hand against anyone ever again, even though many hands were raised against him.

Understanding that life is valuable, I would still disagree. Jesus never told soldiers to put their swords down. John the Baptist only said to be content with the wages. Jesus is coming back and will destroy those who are against God. All of these are indications that sometimes one must defend oneself.

Here are a few reference works that tell a different story.....

“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.” (The Rise of Christianity, by E. W. Barnes, 1947, p. 333)

“It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight; . . . up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.” (The Early Church and the World, by C. J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276)

“In the second century, Christianity . . . had affirmed the incompatibility of military service with Christianity.” (A Short History of Rome, by G. Ferrero and C. Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382)

“The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.” (Our World Through the Ages, by N. Platt and M. J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125)

“The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.” (The New World’s Foundations in the Old, by R. and W. M. West, 1929, p. 131)

“The Christians . . . shrank from public office and military service.” (Editorial introduction to “Persecution of the Christians in Gaul, A.D. 177,” in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R. Johnson, 1905, Vol. III, p. 246)

“While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon, Vol. I, p. 416."

There is no record in the Bible of Christians being encouraged to shed blood under any circumstances. On the night of Jesus' arrest, Peter used his sword to inflict a wound on the slave of the High Priest. Jesus rebuked him telling him to 'return his weapon to its place because all who live by the sword will die by the sword'.

The Prince of Peace does not condone violence. Loving our enemies precludes killing them.

Agreed. This is God's best. Marriage is a picture of Jesus and the church and thus their respective rolls. However, we know that there are single parental families as well as families where the wife sanctifies the home through faith as she lives with an unbeliever (as the Bible calls it).

We can always count on that truth for all eternity....God always knows best. Following his word...we can't go wrong.

 

[Hugh of Borg]

If god had been created as a female by the authors of the Bible instead of a male, would women have been treated very differently over the centuries? In my opinion, god was only given the male gender because in the ancient world men were considered to be superior to the female.

If any god does exist it is more likely to be genderless.

Women featured in the Bible aren't treated well on the whole, but as reproductive machines for the most part. Solomon's many concubines obviously played a big part in keeping his dangly bits busy! Did they do it willingly, or more likely did they have no say in the matter? Whilst most Christian women these days demand to be treated as equal to men, more extreme male members of the faith still expect them to be subservient to their wishes using the Bible as an excuse.

There is very little woman can't do that men can, and visa versa. You never know, one day men might evolve enough to become pregnant!

Is there anyone on this forum who thinks men and women should stay trapped in the traditional roles society and religion had placed upon them?

 

[Hugh of Borg]

If god had been created as a female by the authors of the Bible instead of a male, would women have been treated very differently over the centuries? In my opinion, god was only given the male gender because in the ancient world men were considered to be superior to the female.

If any god does exist it is more likely to be genderless.

Women featured in the Bible aren't treated well on the whole, but as reproductive machines for the most part. Solomon's many concubines obviously played a big part in keeping his dangly bits busy! Did they do it willingly, or more likely did they have no say in the matter? Whilst most Christian women these days demand to be treated as equal to men, more extreme male members of the faith still expect them to be subservient to their wishes using the Bible as an excuse.

There is very little woman can't do that men can, and visa versa. You never know, one day men might evolve enough to become pregnant!

Is there anyone on this forum who thinks men and women should stay trapped in the traditional roles society and religion had placed upon them?