Is God a Woman?

[Inky]

"Female" and "Male" are terms applied to plants and animals that exhibit sexual dimorphism. We have male and female humans because humans are a species of animal, and are sexually dimorphic. Unless you believe God is a plant or animal, it doesn't make sense to give it a gender.

 

[Worshipper]

"Female" and "Male" are terms applied to plants and animals that exhibit sexual dimorphism. We have male and female humans because humans are a species of animal, and are sexually dimorphic. Unless you believe God is a plant or animal, it doesn't make sense to give it a gender.

Female and male are also terms applied to electrical connectors. If you believe that God is a source of great power, then it would make good sense to assign a gender term to God, at least in a metaphorical sense. In fact, in that case, it would make good sense to call God female, since we tend to associate female connectors with sources of power.

Of course, an animal is something that has a spirit, from an etymological perspective. According to the New Testament, God is Spirit. That would make God the quintessential animal. Then it would make sense to think of God has having a gender.

And of course, if you believe in sexual dimorphism among divine beings (gods and goddesses), then it doesn't really matter whether you think God is a plant or an animal — you still need to accept the idea that gods have gender.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Hey Sandy, I just noticed you were a man. I guess I haven't met enough men named Sandy. Sorry. I won't take it so easy on you then.

How nice that you are so overtly sexist.

 

[S-word]

I have heard of this view, but I have never really understood it. Is there anyone that believes that God is a woman that can explain the rationale behind this belief?

Had you have asked,"Is God a man," the answere would still be no. For the human race belongs not to the body of a male person, nor to the body of a female person, but to the body of man who God created; in his image and likeness he created him, male and famale was man created, God is androgynous as is the body of man the Most High in the creation and Lord of all creatures.

 

[Worshipper]

How nice that you are so overtly sexist.

Thanks! I think it's nice, too!

I'm proud of the fact that I hold doors open for women to pass through them, but just hold doors open for men to grab.

I'm proud of the fact that I am willing to interfere aggressively when I see a man physically fighting with a woman, but not so willing when I see a man fighting a man.

I'm proud of the fact that I police my speech more carefully around women than I do when I am around men.

I'm proud of the fact that, while I might clap a man on the back a bit roughly or yell into his ear a bit fervently at a football game, I would never do that to a woman.

I'm proud of my overt sexism. It's reassuring to see that you think it's nice, too!

 

[challupa]

Hmmm I would like to hear what Sandy's response is to the fact that the Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions are in the Non-fiction section of the library. Do you believe that everything in the non fiction section of the library is true? Just curious...

 

[Draka]

Hmmm I would like to hear what Sandy's response is to the fact that the Bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon, Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions are in the Non-fiction section of the library. Do you believe that everything in the non fiction section of the library is true? Just curious...

We're probably not going to hear anything about that from him. If he wants to hold that the bible can't possibly be considered fiction, that it is fact, because it is in the non-fiction section of the library then he would have to agree that everything else there is fact as well. Including books on all the rest of our religions as well. Not to mention books on UFO sightings, paranormal phenomena, psychic powers, and so much more. Just because it may be considered non-fiction doesn't mean that everyone will take something as fact and may well consider it to be fiction...regardless of its classification.

 

[challupa]

Yes I suppose that is the dilemma for anyone who thinks their religion is the only true religion. When one looks at our diverse world though, it hard to believe that people still hold that opinion. They box God into such a small realm of possibility and I believe God is so much larger than that...

 

[Watchmen]

LDS believe we are children of Heavenly Parents - male and female. This implies there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.

 

[Draka]

LDS believe we are children of Heavenly Parents - male and female. This implies there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.

Ah, but see, you're not "real" Christians. So your opinion doesn't mean anything.


In all sincerity though, I've always thought if one is going to call a god "Father" and consider him to be a parent, one should believe in a "Mother" as well. If we were fashioned after gods and we have fathers who protect and mothers who give birth, stands to reason that the gods should be viewed as Father AND Mother as well. But that's just my Paganism talking I guess.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Hinduism normally depicts male and female Goddesses, but has a Shakti (female force) to each God.

 

[Luminous]

I believe that the Christian God is male but I personally believe my Gods are male & female. The earth is our Mother even science to a point backs the cliam that if earth dies we die with her. From our Mother comes all life tree, plants. humans.

we are but a cancer on this earth. and as the transmitable tazmenian devil cancer. we can always find another host if this one is to die.

 

[Luminous]

Ah, but see, you're not "real" Christians. So your opinion doesn't mean anything.


In all sincerity though, I've always thought if one is going to call a god "Father" and consider him to be a parent, one should believe in a "Mother" as well. If we were fashioned after gods and we have fathers who protect and mothers who give birth, stands to reason that the gods should be viewed as Father AND Mother as well. But that's just my Paganism talking I guess.

we are all pagans; we who would support other faiths among us.

 

[challupa]

Then I guess I'm a pagan if that's the definition. I do support all faiths. I don't think any religion is the one and only path to God. That mindset is going to get us all killed eventually and probably the world and all the species that share the world with us. When are people going to let go of the negative teachings of their religions and understand that their fears of going to hell have been exploited from the beginning of organized relgions? I just cannot see an all powerful, all loving, all merciful God as a punishing God of a God that needs anything. It is a contradiction of terms.
The Abrahamic religions say God is male or genderless, but they are not balanced with the feminine like most other religions. Without balance we run the risk of ignoring the other half of our being and that is never recommended...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If you knew anything about translating, and it's obvious that you don't (in fact, I would be very surprised if you weren't monolingual), you would know that you can't convey something expressed in the rules of one language precisely in the rules of another. Yes, the translators followed the rules of English. That means they did not follow the rules of Hebrew. And they certainly didn't follow the rules of Moses's Hebrew, which are pretty much lost to us all today. They expressed something according to the rules of English. It's a good stab at what the prophets wrote, but it's not spot on. It can never be. So putting all your faith on that colon is stupid.

Your ad hominems aside, the translators of that particular section of the KJV had enough language experience to tranlate better than you or me. One of the translators is reported to be fluent in 15 languages. As to why I won't trust your ability is that you fail to understand that whether you use a colon, semi-colon or a comma changes the meaning of the English.

Oh no, I remember. And I'm telling you that Moses didn't care about the rules of English and that it was Moses who received God's word on this one.

Gibberish.

So your finicky rules about Modern English have nothing to do with the word of God, which clearly talks about multiple gods creating mankind, male and female, in their image — and that clearly implies the existence of at least one female god.

More gibberish.

So, none. Zero experience. Heck, you even think the KJV is in Old English.

That was an mistake made by not thinking at the time I typed it, so I'll give you that point.

You probably agree with the English-only types who go about saying things like, "Jesus spoke English, so it's good enough for me!"

If you try to make a text that came to man 3000 years ago fit the present punctuation usage of a language that didn't even exist 1500 years ago, then you clearly don't know a thing about translation.

And you seem to know little about the meaning and usage of correct English grammer.

Incidentally, you may not realize it, but the colon didn't have a syntactic function in 1611, when the KJV was translated. Its function was as an aid in reading aloud. It meant that the person reading should pause a bit — not as much as he would if it were a period, but more than if it were semicolon, which in turn was a longer pause than a comma. That's all the KJV translators meant with the colon — "breathe a bit here". So your syntactic argument based on a KJV colon is wrong any way you look at it.

You may or may not be right on this point. The understanding is unclear for the time period. It is clear that the 1611 KJV is not written in common English and the rules were being established at the time. The invention of the printing press called for a standardization of written English and this was in the process of happening. Contrary to this is that Scripture was the most common text that was read aloud and the pause rules seemed to apply. It is also clear that the KJV style became the more accepted norm for formal grammer due to it's usage of the best available grammer of it's time and widespread usage by the populace subsequently.

Now, what I do realize is that the 1611 version is, in practicality, no longer used ergo the rules of the time are no longer applicable. Various reprints and editing brought the 1611 translation up to date for spelling and punctuation by the mid to late 1700's when the rules of grammer were established. Furthermore the New King James translation only saw fit to replace that particular colon with a semi-colon which only slightly changed the meaning. What that infers then is that what comes before the semi-colon is a complete thought with what comes after it a further clarification of that comes previous. The only change, then, is that when there was a colon the previous was incomplete in meaning without the following. Heck, I believe the Never Improved Version (NIV) uses the same punctuation. You aren't going to contend that the revisors of both the New KJV and the NIV were not privy to the "new" rules of English are you?

Now, getting back on topic of the OP. Not only does the correct reading of the verses offered show that God is not male and female the reading of Scripture in it's entirety clearly shows this not to be the case. What You will find is that the usage of the plural in the Hebrew in this instance in Genesis refers to a singular plurality, much in the way as we might, in English, say, "a bunch of grapes." This is a singular bunch with multiple grapes. The inference is that there is one God with a plurality of parts, ie. the Trinity. This can be futher verified by the usage elswhere in Scripture of the plural "Elohim" when clearly it is speaking of a singular. This is also mirrored by the usage of the plural "Cherubim" when it is clear that a singular cherub is meant.

So I guess my syntactical argument is valid, anyway I look at it.

And by the way, I'm thinking that Ovid was probably the last thing I've translated, not that it's relevant. I guess my point is that were I to make such incorrect assuptions about others I would feel childish.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Thanks! I think it's nice, too!

I'm proud of the fact that I hold doors open for women to pass through them, but just hold doors open for men to grab.

I'm proud of the fact that I am willing to interfere aggressively when I see a man physically fighting with a woman, but not so willing when I see a man fighting a man.

I'm proud of the fact that I police my speech more carefully around women than I do when I am around men.

I'm proud of the fact that, while I might clap a man on the back a bit roughly or yell into his ear a bit fervently at a football game, I would never do that to a woman.

I'm proud of my overt sexism. It's reassuring to see that you think it's nice, too!

Your confusing chivalry with sexism.

 

[Worshipper]

Your ad hominems aside, the translators of that particular section of the KJV had enough language experience to tranlate better than you or me. One of the translators is reported to be fluent in 15 languages.

That's funny! Just so you know, you're the one using an ad hominem here.

As to why I won't trust your ability is that you fail to understand that whether you use a colon, semi-colon or a comma changes the meaning of the English.

But I do understand that. I also understand that the colon didn't change the meaning when this colon was written in English. I also understand that the Bible wasn't originally composed in English. I also understand that no translation can render the original perfectly.

You may or may not be right on this point. The understanding is unclear for the time period. It is clear that the 1611 KJV is not written in common English and the rules were being established at the time. The invention of the printing press called for a standardization of written English and this was in the process of happening. Contrary to this is that Scripture was the most common text that was read aloud and the pause rules seemed to apply. It is also clear that the KJV style became the more accepted norm for formal grammer due to it's usage of the best available grammer of it's time and widespread usage by the populace subsequently.

Now, what I do realize is that the 1611 version is, in practicality, no longer used ergo the rules of the time are no longer applicable. Various reprints and editing brought the 1611 translation up to date for spelling and punctuation by the mid to late 1700's when the rules of grammer were established.

If this particular colon were the product of such modernizations of spelling and punctuation, then you'd have a good argument here. Unfortunately for you, though, this particular colon was part of the original translation, as you can verify by looking at facsimiles of the 1611 KJV. Such facsimiles are readily available online.

Modernizations of spelling and punctuation are not new translations. The modernizers don't go back to the original languages and try to make the spelling and punctuation fit the meaning of the original text better. They simply look for things that appear to be errors in spelling or pronunciation at the moment. This particular colon wouldn't seem to be in error, and so it wouldn't be caught by someone who is essentially proofreading. So this colon isn't there because it means what a colon means now — it's there because it meant what a colon meant in 1611. The new meaning that a reader might try to impose on it now is what's in error.

Furthermore the New King James translation only saw fit to replace that particular colon with a semi-colon which only slightly changed the meaning. What that infers then is that what comes before the semi-colon is a complete thought with what comes after it a further clarification of that comes previous. The only change, then, is that when there was a colon the previous was incomplete in meaning without the following.

And that totally up-ends your whole colon-based argument. That colon and the incompleteness it supposedly signified in what preceded it was your sole textual basis in this chapter for saying that being made in God's image means something other than being made in God's image. If, when a new translation was made after the colon acquired a syntactic meaning, the translators changed it from a colon to a semicolon, then they felt that incompleteness was a modern misunderstanding rather than a good representation of the original text. They felt the clause before the colon was in fact complete in the original. So your argument is gone.

Heck, I believe the Never Improved Version (NIV) uses the same punctuation.

Well, like you say, Never Improved! (Nice backronym, too!)

You aren't going to contend that the revisors of both the New KJV and the NIV were not privy to the "new" rules of English are you?

I'm not sure why you have the scare quotes on new there. At any rate, I'm not going to contend anything about what the NIV folks were smoking. But as you pointed out, the NKJV folks, understanding the new rules of punctuation, changed that colon into a semicolon, which renders your argument dead.

Now, getting back on topic of the OP. Not only does the correct reading of the verses offered show that God is not male and female the reading of Scripture in it's entirety clearly shows this not to be the case. What You will find is that the usage of the plural in the Hebrew in this instance in Genesis refers to a singular plurality, much in the way as we might, in English, say, "a bunch of grapes." This is a singular bunch with multiple grapes. The inference is that there is one God with a plurality of parts, ie. the Trinity. This can be futher verified by the usage elswhere in Scripture of the plural "Elohim" when clearly it is speaking of a singular. This is also mirrored by the usage of the plural "Cherubim" when it is clear that a singular cherub is meant.

That's hardly established fact. Especially in light of Genesis 1 taken on its own.

As I said before, "There may be good reason not to take this passage at face value, perhaps based on other portions of the Bible or perhaps based on extra-biblical theological reasoning. But if we're limiting ourselves to Genesis 1, a literal interpretation forces a belief in multiple gods (at least two) who at least look like men and women."

And by the way, I'm thinking that Ovid was probably the last thing I've translated, not that it's relevant. I guess my point is that were I to make such incorrect assuptions about others I would feel childish.

Then you must know, if you did any serious amount of work with Ovid, that no translation can render the original perfectly.

Your confusing chivalry with sexism.

Well, you were the one who first called my chivalry sexist. I take it you really can distinguish between them, then. In that case, I'll accept your retraction!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well, you were the one who first called my chivalry sexist. I take it you really can distinguish between them, then. In that case, I'll accept your retraction!

Au contraire Peirre, you confused the two. Since this is strictly an intellectual forum you deemed it necesary to take it easy on me in the arena of ideas when you erroneously assumed me to be female an the basis that as a woman I couldn't handle it. That's sexism. Good day.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Modernizations of spelling and punctuation are not new translations. The modernizers don't go back to the original languages and try to make the spelling and punctuation fit the meaning of the original text better. They simply look for things that appear to be errors in spelling or pronunciation at the moment. This particular colon wouldn't seem to be in error, and so it wouldn't be caught by someone who is essentially proofreading. So this colon isn't there because it means what a colon means now — it's there because it meant what a colon meant in 1611. The new meaning that a reader might try to impose on it now is what's in error.

And what do you base this on?

And that totally up-ends your whole colon-based argument.

Except that I don't believe the NKJV to be reliable since the first verse is wrong.

 

[Worshipper]

And what do you base this on?

Knowledge. Sorry if you lack it.