Why a male supreme God?

[Katzpur]

Yes but that doesn't mean they are male like us, I mean with a penis, so if they don't have a penis, what are they.

Who says they don't have penises? I mean, we could argue the point ad nauseum, since the Bible never specifically mentions this body part. On the other hand, the earliest Christians definitely did believe in an anthropomorphic God. I'm not talking about random people who lived four or five hundred years after Christ. I'm talking about people like the Apostle Peter. In the "Clementine Homilies," (a Jewish document based on a 2nd century source), we have Peter answering the following question that was put to him: I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God." Here's his answer:

"I am quite certain... that this is the case... It is the shape of the just God. For He has shape, and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty's sake, and not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see with them; for He sees on every side, since He is incomparably more brilliant in His body than the visual spirit which is in us, and He is more splendid than everything, so that in comparison with Him the light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness. Nor has He ears that He may hear; for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side."

 

[Thanda]

By the way Katzpur. I am a man. I'm South African and I'm a Mormon

 

[psychoslice]

Who says they don't have penises? I mean, we could argue the point ad nauseum, since the Bible never specifically mentions this body part. On the other hand, the earliest Christians definitely did believe in an anthropomorphic God. I'm not talking about random people who lived four or five hundred years after Christ. I'm talking about people like the Apostle Peter. In the "Clementine Homilies," (a Jewish document based on a 2nd century source), we have Peter answering the following question that was put to him: I should like to know, Peter, if you really believe that the shape of man has been moulded after the shape of God." Here's his answer:

"I am quite certain... that this is the case... It is the shape of the just God. For He has shape, and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty's sake, and not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see with them; for He sees on every side, since He is incomparably more brilliant in His body than the visual spirit which is in us, and He is more splendid than everything, so that in comparison with Him the light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness. Nor has He ears that He may hear; for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side."

Na, your wrong, simple as that.

 

[Sihopopa]

'Explaining' imaginary entities is always challenging.

Yes I guess it would be, yet explaining a reality that is non-physical, and especially one that is preeminent over the physical, can be even more so.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes I guess it would be, yet explaining a reality that is non-physical, and especially one that is preeminent over the physical, can be even more so.

Indeed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

By the way Katzpur. I am a man. I'm South African and I'm a Mormon

I had guessed that you were a Mormon.

 

[Sihopopa]

First off, Thanda never claimed to be a "baby god."

First off; Thanda said that maybe I was right in my explanation of his reasoning, which for mine falls a little short of denying the suggestion. Perhaps you speak another version of English, but all that looks fairly self explanatory from this end.

Second, you're assuming Thanda is a male.

Second; notwithstanding that Thanda has already admitted to being male, please show me where in my posts I suggested he is male? Otherwise your erroneous assumptions just keep piling up, huh?

Perhaps it has something to do with the deficiency in your appreciation of English.

Not that it's of any great importance, but I had assumed Thanda to be a female.

Again you make assumption upon assumption, and now admit it, and it would appear on this occasion your assumption was incorrect. I'd be willing to bet it isn't the first time.

So if it's of no importance to you, why are you making such a song and dance about it?

Lastly, I don't think that Thanda would say that God was his/her physical father. That he/she was conceived as a result of his/her two mortal parents having had sex is pretty undeniable, and he/she never even suggested that God fathered her.

Do you always assume yourself qualified to make a habit of stepping up on your pedestal with your loudspeaker to declare your assumptions for others?

Before you make yourself look even sillier, I suggest you have a little read through the posts that you've clearly failed to comprehend thus far. Your assumptions unto this point leave a great deal to be desired.

I see nothing illogical about what Thanda has said.

I'd expect nothing less from your keyboard.

 

[Thanda]

God has no physicality, so is NOT and has never been a thing, in the physical sense.

Well then we are in agreement. Your God is not a thing. Or, as I like to put it, he is nothing! And yet you worship this nothing, this God who doesn't exist.

Nothing can live independent of matter. No thoughts can take place if there is no brain. No pain can be felt without a nervous system. Intelligence, or spirit cannot live independent of physical matter. So as you spoke of neurons, they do indeed organize themselves, but again, neurons are matter and their intelligence resides within the matter. The intelligence of the neurons cannot exist outside of matter because then they don't exist and are not real. The only thing that is real is matter and that which resides inside it.

 

[Katzpur]

By the way Katzpur. I am a man. I'm South African and I'm a Mormon

Cool! I have a South African friend from Pretoria who I actually met first online and later in person when he came to Salt Lake City. He was a bishop at that time. We still keep in touch.

 

[Katzpur]

Na, your wrong, simple as that.

Well, if you say so.

 

[Katzpur]

First off; Thanda said that maybe I was right in my explanation of his reasoning, which for mine falls a little short of denying the suggestion. Perhaps you speak another version of English, but all that looks fairly self explanatory from this end.

Second; notwithstanding that Thanda has already admitted to being male, please show me where in my posts I suggested he is male? Otherwise your erroneous assumptions just keep piling up, huh?

Perhaps it has something to do with the deficiency in your appreciation of English.

Again you make assumption upon assumption, and now admit it, and it would appear on this occasion your assumption was incorrect. I'd be willing to bet it isn't the first time.

So if it's of no importance to you, why are you making such a song and dance about it?

Do you always assume yourself qualified to make a habit of stepping up on your pedestal with your loudspeaker to declare your assumptions for others?

Before you make yourself look even sillier, I suggest you have a little read through the posts that you've clearly failed to comprehend thus far. Your assumptions unto this point leave a great deal to be desired.

I'd expect nothing less from your keyboard.

Wow. You really get off on insulting people, don't you? Just what is it you get out of being rude? I suspect your bravado can be tried to the anonymity of the internet. I would hope that you'd be a little more civil in person. As to my English, my university degree was in English. I graduated magna cum laude and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. I don't mention these things as a rule, but since you have made such a point of insulting my English, I believe the point is worth mentioning. Finally, I said up front that I didn't know whether Thanda was male or female. Now I do. Let it go, man. Treat me like a nice person and you'll find that I am one.

 

[Katzpur]

Well then we are in agreement. Your God is not a thing. Or, as I like to put it, he is nothing! And yet you worship this nothing, this God who doesn't exist.

Thanda, can you ever imagine worshipping a "substance" that fills the universe? The Bible tells us that the pure in heart will see God. I love knowing that I won't be gazing into nothingness and asking, "God? Are you there?" Instead, I'll see His face. I'll look into His eyes, and I'll feel His arms around me.

 

[outhouse]

Na, your wrong, simple as that.

She is correct.

The Jewish deities Yahweh and Baal had male genitals. Art work as early as 800BC depicts this. Asherah was female.


They factually were a FAMILY of deities in the mythology.

 

[outhouse]

I merely said that God has a wife.

Had a wife, not has.

Asherah was first Els wife. And later Yahwehs wife.

When the deities were compiled together, during the monotheistic reforms, Asherah no longer remained and was reduced to cult status.

 

[Deidre]

God has a penis.

I've heard it all now!

 

[outhouse]

God has a penis.

I've heard it all now!

Yahweh and his asherah - Bing Images

 

[outhouse]

God has a penis.

I've heard it all now!

Asherah had breast so why cannot a married couple have genitals ??

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult,

Notice the family part?????

 

[leibowde84]

To those who worship a male supreme deity - why? What leads you to conclude that the Supreme Being is male or otherwise masculine? How do you arrive at the idea that the Creator is male? I don't see this in nature. It is the female who brings forth life in nature. The male's contribution is somewhat of an afterthought. Even fetuses start out female and only develop into males when the Y chromosome is introduced. The Bible, for instance, has this backward and has the woman being born from the male, as an afterthought when Adam couldn't find a suitable companion among the animals. How does this make any sense?

Is it only because your holy book presents your deity in masculine terms? Or did you come to this conclusion by yourself? Male supreme deities seem to be rather late in humanity's religious history, after all.

I think it just sounds weird to refer to God as "it," so "he" is the next best thing. The patriarchal aspect of our global society is a reasonable explanation for choosing "he" instead of "she."

 

[1137]

Hey St. Frank.,

I was thinking that we human beings live a very linear experience. We move ever forward in one direction through time for our entire existence. Linear movement is linked with "masculine" forces/energy because of the shape of the penis. This could color our perception as the creator of this universe as male.

Or that's mystical crap and humans are historically sexist.

 

[Deadtroopers]

Na, that's all metaphors, hands and everything, those who wrote the scriptures couldn't imagine god any other way than themselves.

That statement is a contradiction. If the writers couldn't imagine otherwise, that God has a body must be what they meant. Saying God doesn't have a body renders large parts of the text as unworkable. There would be no Israel if God had not wrestled Jacob; wrestling requires a body. After the apple incident God has to ask where Adam and Eve are; he is a discrete entity that needs eyes. At one point in Exodus I think Moses gets to see God's backside in passing.