• 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!

Question for anti-trans monotheists

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
It is how He identifies in the Bible. Not my decision. But I think there is a good reason for that, and the reason is, He has fathered everything. (Father = to be the originator of something).

And a mother is not the originator of something?


:rolleyes:

I'ld say the mother has a much bigger role in bringing children into the world then fathers.
In fact, plenty of species don't even require a father. Mothers can fertilize their own eggs in case no fathers are available. The fathers of those species can't do the same though. They can only deposit their seed and a mother is required for the production of off spring.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
For any and all purposes you can call her anything you want to call her. Someone with female organs who bears children is a female.
Good job dodging the point made.

The argument was about perceived identity. That god is perceived as male because he is called "father" in the book.

In the argument, one doesn't require a DNA test of god to see if it contains X and Y chromosomes.
So other criteria are in play. And the only other criteria here, is the use of the word "father".

If that is the logic, then Sam Bettens is male according to the exact same logic.

You may start the special pleading now.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
And a mother is not the originator of something?

I'ld say the mother has a much bigger role in bringing children into the world then fathers.
...

I don't say father has a bigger role, he has a different role and without it, woman would not become pregnant.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I don't say father has a bigger role, he has a different role and without it, woman would not become pregnant.

Funny how you cut out the part where I informed you that in plenty of species, the females actually don't really require a male. They can fertilize their own eggs when males are not available.

The off spring is better of when there are males available though.
But that's not the point.

The point is that your reasoning is clearly not correct.

In such logic, it would be far more reasonable to conclude the opposite... that this god should be regarded as female.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Funny how you cut out the part where I informed you that in plenty of species, the females actually don't really require a male. ...

It was irrelevant, because we were talking about humans. But, in that case, if it is true, the being is both father and mother.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
If you think God has a gender (e.g. if you refer to God with "he/him" pronouns), how did you decide which pronouns apply?

I mean, I assume you aren't basing this on God's chromosomes or genitalia (or are you? :eek:), so what criteria are you basing your decision on?

Isn't gender only relevant if there is someone to mate with? Like if God is a man then that implies that there is a woman?

From what I have read in the bible, God is considered a man relative to his people on earth who are collectively a woman. God marries the church as the church is his consort. God's gender then becomes a metaphorical statement.

Based on the opening of genesis, God might not have a gender at all, as it is both masculine and feminine in one. Adam was made in his image, and female, Eve, came out of Adam, implying that at one point Adam was both male and female. When male and female mate they become one, implying that Adam was originally both sexes in one and thus both genders in one. Or maybe it is more accurately to say that back then gender wasnt a concept. So if my theory is what the author intended, then God, who Adam is the image of, is both male and female, man and woman, hence why it has creative power within itself.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Isn't gender only relevant if there is someone to mate with? Like if God is a man then that implies that there is a woman?

From what I have read in the bible, God is considered a man relative to his people on earth who are collectively a woman. God marries the church as the church is his consort. God's gender then becomes a metaphorical statement.

Based on the opening of genesis, God might not have a gender at all, as it is both masculine and feminine in one. Adam was made in his image, and female, Eve, came out of Adam, implying that at one point Adam was both male and female. When male and female mate they become one, implying that Adam was originally both sexes in one and thus both genders in one. Or maybe it is more accurately to say that back then gender wasnt a concept. So if my theory is what the author intended, then God, who Adam is the image of, is both male and female, man and woman, hence why it has creative power within itself.
So referring to God with "he" and "him" pronouns is incorrect?
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
The biblical authors wrote from their lived experience, a patriarchal society, and personalized God through anthropomorphism.
 

Five Solas

Active Member
If you think God has a gender (e.g. if you refer to God with "he/him" pronouns), how did you decide which pronouns apply?

I mean, I assume you aren't basing this on God's chromosomes or genitalia (or are you? :eek:), so what criteria are you basing your decision on?
Believers did not make God...
Neither did we assign a gender.
 
Top