Is God female, male or other?

Katzpur said:

I believe that when God said He was going to create us in His image, He was speaking of the human form as opposed to some other form. In my opinion, no race is superior to another. If God's black and I'm white, I'm totally okay with that.

If you look at the context of the statement (in Genesis 1:24-26), my perspective makes total sense.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

These verses are describing the physical creation of life on this earth. They state very specifically that God created all forms of animal life and gave them the ability to reproduce after their own kind. Without skipping a beat, they continue by stating that God created man in His own image, after his likeness.

Just four chapters later (in Genesis 5:3), we read the following:

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth."

The verbiage is virtually identical. Just as God created man in His image, after His likeness, Adam begat a son in his image, after his likeness. I've never heard anybody try to tell me that this verse (Genesis 5:3) means anything other than that Adam had a son who resembled him. Just as dogs have puppies and cats have kittens, human beings also produce after their own kind. God just started the process by creating man in His image and likeness.

Click to expand...

I don't know Kat. When I think of God creating humans in His image I think more of us having His traits like love, kindness, wisdom, courage, etc. .

luna

lunamoth said:

I don't know Kat. When I think of God creating humans in His image I think more of us having His traits like love, kindness, wisdom, courage, etc. .

luna

Click to expand...

Thats what I've been saying......

Real Sorceror said:

Its the difference in perception and power. Vishnu and Horus wouldn't know if a pebble was floating through space a hundred-trillion light years away. God would. God is both here right now and a trillion light years away. He is everywhere and in everything, even in Vishnu and Horus. Also, niether of those beings could instantaneously catch the pebble. They can't cross that distant that fast. God can becuase He is already there. The other gods senses are limited to what their bodies can perciece. They are limited to what their bodies can perform and endure. (though most of them have suprnatural enhancment)

Click to expand...

Do you make any distinction between ontological omnipresence and functional omnipresence? Since you're not a Christian, but at least have a Christian background, let me just ask you this: Did the fact that Jesus have a physical body in anyway limit what He was able to do? As I'm sure you'll recall, He calmed a storm on the Sea of Galilee by doing nothing more than stretching forth His hand and saying, "Peace. Be Still." He could have done exactly the same thing if He had physically been on the other side of the world. I believe that, unlike God the Father, the Holy Ghost is ontologically omnipresent. That's why He is described as being "the Spirit." If God the Father was also ontologically omnipresent (as opposed to being functionally omnipresent), what purpose would the Holy Ghost serve at all?

I know thats not Biblical at all, but nothing of what I'm saying is Biblical either, so I'll let that slide, just this once.

Click to expand...

Sounds fair enough.

Ok, so how does this Goddess work? Is She like God's exact twin as far as power, knowledge, and ability? Has She always existed? Does this mean your not a monothiest?

Click to expand...

Well, the Latter-day Saint belief is that God has a female counterpart, a Goddess who is the spiritual Mother of all living mankind. It would be pure speculation for me to try to explain anything else about her, since there isn't any additional doctrine on the subject. We believe that there will come a time, in the next life, when we will get to know her.

Am I a monotheist? Well, that all depends upon who you ask. I'm definitely not a Trinitarian, but I do believe in the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I just don't believe that they are all manifestations of a single substance. (Obviously, I couldn't, since I believe the Father and the Son to both have immortal bodies of flesh and bones.) I believe that they are perfectly, absolutely and completely "one" in will, purpose, power, glory and all of the other attributes which makes them God. In other words, their unity is in spiritual as opposed to physical make-up. Add the belief in a Mother in Heaven to the equation, and I'm sure that's enough to convince some people that I'm polytheistic. Speaking personally (and collectively, on behalf of the Latter-day Saints as a whole), we consider ourselves monotheistic. We worship a single Godhead, comprised of three divine beings, and recognize the existence of a fourth divine being (our spiritual Mother). As far as I'm concerned, we are as monotheistic as any Trinitarian, and as far as most Muslims are concerned, all Christians are polythestic. I guess it's all in how you define your terms.

BTW, this has been a very interesting conversation for me. I don't know how it is on your end.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's been fun. So far, you haven't told me I'm not a "real" Christian, at least. Oh, wait! It's only the "real" Christians who do that.

It's past my bedtime, though. I'll check back on this thread tomorrow.

lunamoth said:

I don't know Kat. When I think of God creating humans in His image I think more of us having His traits like love, kindness, wisdom, courage, etc. .

luna

Click to expand...

I know, but that's not what the word "image" means. That's why I always challenge people to use the word "image" in a sentence, the way they would in everyday conversation. You'd never use the word "image" to describe a person's character traits. You'd use it to describe his appearance.

I also believe He gave us the potential to be like Him in terms of the qualities you mention, i.e. love, kindness, wisdom, courage, etc. But those are spiritual attributes. The words "attribute" and "image" are not interchangeable.

HopefulNikki said:

Precisely. God specifically chooses (in your view) what each person will look like before they are born. If God has a hair color and skin color (let's say, blond hair and he's white), then He is intentionally choosing who is going to look more like Him (by being a white blond), and who is going to look less like Him (say, a Chinese person with black hair). There must be some reasoning behind His selection, and I hesitate to consider why He would make one race look more like Him than another...

Click to expand...

Well, if appearances matter that much to you, I can see why it would be a concern. They don't to me. We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I just don't want to see it turn into a issue of racism. I hope you don't either.

Katzpur said:

I know, but that's not what the word "image" means. That's why I always challenge people to use the word "image" in a sentence, the way they would in everyday conversation. You'd never use the word "image" to describe a person's character traits. You'd use it to describe his appearance.

I also believe He gave us the potential to be like Him in terms of the qualities you mention, i.e. love, kindness, wisdom, courage, etc. But those are spiritual attributes. The words "attribute" and "image" are not interchangeable.

Click to expand...

"He sure lives up to his image."

Katzpur said:

It's past my bedtime, though. I'll check back on this thread tomorrow.

Click to expand...

I'll have to respond tomorrow as well. Nighty-night.

lunamoth said:

"He sure lives up to his image."

Click to expand...

Not bad. Not bad at all. That's the best attempt I've seen yet.

Okay, frubals for that. I would appreciate your taking a look at my post #77 on this thread, though, and commenting on it.

Hi Kat, I don't read the story of Genesis literally so I will not debate about this beyond this post, but here are a couple of thoughts.

Katzpur said:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."

These verses are describing the physical creation of life on this earth. They state very specifically that God created all forms of animal life and gave them the ability to reproduce after their own kind. Without skipping a beat, they continue by stating that God created man in His own image, after his likeness.

Click to expand...

OK, totally taking this idea from Baha'i teachings, but it's one I really like, each creature is made after his kind...with one (or more) of God's attributes. Thus, all creatures are made after God's kind, with humans most fully reflecting God's image because we have the gift of reason and self-knowledge.

Just four chapters later (in Genesis 5:3), we read the following:

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth."

The verbiage is virtually identical. Just as God created man in His image, after His likeness, Adam begat a son in his image, after his likeness. I've never heard anybody try to tell me that this verse (Genesis 5:3) means anything other than that Adam had a son who resembled him. Just as dogs have puppies and cats have kittens, human beings also produce after their own kind. God just started the process by creating man in His image and likeness.

Click to expand...

Interesting that there are two descriptions, one after his own likeness, and one after his image. "After his image" still easily interpretted as meaning like him in character and other attributes, but because we are obviously talking about humans here of course they would also have the same form.

It's cool Kat. I'm not arguing with your interpretation...just couldn't resist the challenge. I'd better go to bed before I get myself in real trouble.

luna

Katzpur said:

Well, if appearances matter that much to you, I can see why it would be a concern. They don't to me. We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I just don't want to see it turn into a issue of racism. I hope you don't either.

Click to expand...

To be frank, appearances seem to matter quite a bit more to Mormons, who insist that the Genesis "image of God" is a physical similarity. I was just drawing the logical conclusion to that line of reasoning. I certainly don't want to see it turn into racism, although that's where I think it inevitably leads (possibly a reason that Mormonism has an unfortunate history of racism?)

lunamoth said:

"He sure lives up to his image."

Click to expand...

With almost uncanny consistency.

Katzpur said:

Do you make any distinction between ontological omnipresence and physical omnipresence?

Click to expand...

Whaty whaty?? I wasn't aware there was more than one type of ominpresence. I mean, if you aren't physically or spiritually there, how are you present?

Since you're not a Christian, but at least have a Christian background, let me just ask you this: Did the fact that Jesus have a physical body in anyway limit what He was able to do?

Click to expand...

I don't recall him doing anything that a prophet of God couldn't accomplish. He also didn't perform any action in which his body would become a problem.

As I'm sure you'll recall, He calmed a storm on the Sea of Galilee by doing nothing more than stretching forth His hand and saying, "Peace. Be Still." He could have done exactly the same thing if He had physically been on the other side of the world.

Click to expand...

Maybe he could have, but again, no scripture leads me to think that he could have.

I believe that, unlike God the Father, the Holy Ghost is physically omnipresent. That's why He is described as being "the Spirit." If God the Father was also physically omnipresent (as opposed to being physically omnipresent), what purpose would the Holy Ghost serve at all?

Click to expand...

Its always tough for Christians to explain to me what the Holy Ghost's purpose is. As a result, I really don't know what it's function is, or even what it is.

Well, the Latter-day Saint belief is that God has a female counterpart, a Goddess who is the spiritual Mother of all living mankind. It would be pure speculation for me to try to explain anything else about her, since there isn't any additional doctrine on the subject. We believe that there will come a time, in the next life, when we will get to know her.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Am I a monotheist? Well, that all depends upon who you ask. I'm definitely not a Trinitarian, but I do believe in the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Click to expand...

Is the definition of monotheism believing in one god or just worshiping one god?

I just don't believe that they are all manifestations of a single substance. (Obviously, I couldn't, since I believe the Father and the Son to both have immortal bodies of flesh and bones.)

Click to expand...

Ya, I can see where that would get messy.

I believe that they are perfectly, absolutely and completely "one" in will, purpose, power, glory and all of the other attributes which makes them God. In other words, their unity is in spiritual as opposed to physical make-up. Add the belief in a Mother in Heaven to the equation, and I'm sure that's enough to convince some people that I'm polytheistic. Speaking personally (and collectively, on behalf of the Latter-day Saints as a whole), we consider ourselves monotheistic. We worship a single Godhead, comprised of three divine beings, and recognize the existence of a fourth divine being (our spiritual Mother). As far as I'm concerned, we are as monotheistic as any Trinitarian, and as far as most Muslims are concerned, all Christians are polythestic. I guess it's all in how you define your terms.

Click to expand...

I would think it has more to do with how many beings you actually worship. I acknowledge that Odin exist, but thats as far as it goes.

Actually, it's been fun. So far, you haven't told me I'm not a "real" Christian, at least. Oh, wait! It's only the "real" Christians who do that.

Click to expand...

I'd be calling the kettle black. I'm not really in a position to say who is and isn't Christian. Also, I'm well aquanted with the dark side of Christians. I've met the real monsters. And I'm not talkin' about Satan.

Katzpur said:

For starters, I never said "flesh and blood."

Well, we look like Him, so it would follow that He looks like us.

Yes.

This kind of question doesn't sound like you, Seyorni. I'm just going to overlook it this time.

Click to expand...

I think you must have missed my point. If God is the God of countless races throughout the universe, of every imaginable shape and configuration (and a number of unimaginable ones), do they, too, conceive of God in their own image? Would they be surprised to find that God was actually tout le portrait of a naked ape existing on an undistinguished planet of an undistinguished star in an undistinguished galaxy in an unfashionable and much-ridiculed sector of the Universe?

Are Hominids, in fact, the paragon of God's creatures?

Could there be some hubris here?

Does anyone know anything about the original untranslated Genesis and what it says where we translate it as "made in His own image"?

To me, asking whether God is male or female is like asking whether God is Mac or Windows compatible. Gender is for animals and some plants, and platform compatability is for software. (Maybe if computers gained consciousness they'd ask that question, in fact!)

Genna said:

Why do most religions refer to God as a "he"?

Click to expand...

They don't; languages do.

Genna said:

What gender would one classify God as?

Click to expand...

Ungendered.

Genna said:

Obviously God is a "Spirit" and does not have flesh and bones nor can He reproduce, so why is God commonly referred to as HE?

Click to expand...

Language meme.

Real Sorceror said:

Is the definition of monotheism believing in one god or just worshiping one god?

Click to expand...

Monotheism is believing in a single god, who is alone. Believing in the existance of multiple gods but worshipping only one is called henotheism.

Inky said:

Does anyone know anything about the original untranslated Genesis and what it says where we translate it as "made in His own image"?

To me, asking whether God is male or female is like asking whether God is Mac or Windows compatible. Gender is for animals and some plants, and platform compatability is for software. (Maybe if computers gained consciousness they'd ask that question, in fact!)

Click to expand...

"Image" in Genesis 1:1 is tselem {tseh'-lem}

It is also used in Gen. 5:3 [NKJV]: "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth."

Numbers 33:52: "then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their engraved stones, destroy all their molded images, and demolish all their high places"

1 Sam. 6:5 and 11: "Therefore you shall make images of your tumors and images of your rats that ravage the land, and you shall give glory to the God of Israel; perhaps He will lighten His hand from you, from your gods, and from your land . . . And they set the ark of the LORD on the cart, and the chest with the gold rats and the images of their tumors.

2 Kings 11:18: "And all the people of the land went to the temple of Baal, and tore it down. They thoroughly broke in pieces its altars and images, and killed Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. And the priest appointed officers over the house of the LORD."

Here's a particularly interesting use of it, Psalm 39:6: "Surely every man walks about like a shadow; Surely they busy themselves in vain; He heaps up riches, And does not know who will gather them."

Psalm 73:20: "As a dream when one awakes, So, Lord, when You awake, You shall despise their image. "

Other passages using it in the sense of idolatry: Eze 7:20 and 16:17, and Amos 5:26.

___________________

It doesn't appear that there is a "his" in the Ancient Hebrew. Strong's has no word associated with this, which suggests that it is included only for translational purposes to meet grammatical requirements for other languages.

In Greek "his" is autos.

doppelgänger said:

With almost uncanny consistency.

Click to expand...

Talk about staying on message...

Assigning gender to a god merely indicates that this is a god made in man's image.