I could take it as a metaphor for Christs motherly nature. John 13:23Yes, metaphors are great for getting ideas across.
Or you can be literal and think God is a female chicken. The ball is in your court.
-
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!
"God is a woman"
- Thread starter The Kilted Heathen
- Start date
Strong's Greek: 2859. κόλπος (kolpos) -- the bosom
Someone that had pockets sewn into their clothing has a motherly/feminine nature?
And of Moses, what say ye of him? Deuteronomy 32:11
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Pies are baked inside an oven, so why do we credit the baker?
Sperm is absolutely a "seed". It's even commonly referred to as such. Female mammals (women) do not have everything that is needed for the creation of life. Conception is a two-part process.
Interesting the commentary says "a position associated with intimacy".Strong's Greek: 2859. κόλπος (kolpos) -- the bosom
Someone that had pockets sewn into their clothing has a motherly/feminine nature?
Here is more apologetics if you prefer. I don't really have issue with Christ having feminine qualities.
John 13:23 Commentaries: There was reclining on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved.
If you read John in 13 as a whole in context it makes perfect sense. Because they are talking about the man that betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot at "the last supper". As far as I can tell Dan Brown does not count as a prophet if that's where your going with this.
Don't blame dan brown for christs femine traits. More traditionally though I have heard more so the holt spirit referred as a femine aspect of God. Of course it has to be right since Hebrews refer to spirit as feminine? Really I think it can go either way and I don't pay much attention to what other languages deem femine or maculine. I speak English which doesnt attach gender to all nouns like Spanish French and Latin.If you read John in 13 as a whole in context it makes perfect sense. Because they are talking about the man that betrayed Jesus, Judas Iscariot at "the last supper". As far as I can tell Dan Brown does not count as a prophet if that's where your going with this.
Gender of the Holy Spirit - Wikipedia
From your article.
God is not a sexual being, either male or female─something that was considered to be true in ancient Near Eastern religion. He even speaks specifically against such a view in Num 23:19, where the text has Balaam saying God is not a man [ish], and in Deut 4:15-16, in which he warns against creating a graven image in "the likeness of male or female." But though he is not a male, the "formless" deity (Deut 4:15) has chosen to reveal himself largely in masculine ways.[23]
I underlined the most important part for you.
Which is why in Christianity, at least, it is easy or us to gender God as masculine. What the other Abrahamic religions do, is their own business. /shrug
If your saying a trinity then it's being feminized with the holy spirit and logos aspects, logos meaning wisdom which is traditionally described in feminine. I also showed you the Christ verse. Showing the femine side. You asked if I thought being caring is femine, my answer is no. Much of your argument stems on traditional gender roles which really don't apply, they are a cultural stigma your trying to apply to a genderless being.
You have not read a single word I have said if you think that I am basing my argument on traditional gender roles.
In fact my argument has been the antithesis of a traditional gender role argument! As proven by my last post by extracting my argument, which was convenitenty in your article. I'll quote it again,
This qoute
is my argument from my first post all the way up to this post.Here is my argument from post #6.
God's does not have a traditional or biological gender to use a traditional gender role argument. God is genderless in this sense. But God reveals himself for the most part in masculine ways. So that tells me he identifies as a male. Combine that with Jesus using masculine pronouns you can deduce God identifies closer to masculine than feminine. Even though he displays attributes of both, just I do, just like you, just like every human does.
I've been challenging your claim that god prefers to be personified as masculine, lol, this is not established fact far as the verses I've been showing you. Spirit is feminine in Hebrew but really even saying that, to personify words as either masculine or feminism is missing the bigger picture.You have not read a single word I have said if you think that I am basing my argument on traditional gender roles.
In fact my argument has been the antithesis of a traditional gender role argument! As proven by my last post by extracting my argument, which was convenitenty in your article. I'll quote it again,
This qoute
Here is my argument from post #6.
God's does not have a traditional or biological gender to use a traditional gender role argument. God is genderless in this sense. But God reveals himself for the most part in masculine ways. So that tells me he identifies as a male. Combine that with Jesus using masculine pronouns you can deduce God identifies closer to masculine than feminine. Even though he displays attributes of both, just I do, just like you, just like every human does.
Spirit is feminine in Hebrew sure enough. Which is fine if Jewish folk define God as feminine, I am not in the business of telling them how they should gender God. Since I am not Jewish, I don't look at God from that pov.
I am arguing it from the Christian pov only. And in Christianity God largely reveals himself as masculine. Jesus uses masculine pronouns repeatedly in the NT. So it's safe to assume God identifies as more male than female, imo.
I have 21 verses with God as father, 30 as husband, 45 as king, 14 where he is seen as a man(either in vision or reality), 6 as a simile/appositive(e.g. God is a man of/like a man of), 3 as shepherd, 79 representations of his strength(e.g. mighty hand/arm), 16 which are messianic(e.g. the rock of salvation, etc.); the other 2 are those mentioned already related to the subject of the thread. I don't claim to have them all, but this is what I found strictly in the old testament, both literally and/or are strongly suggestive of each of the attributes mentioned herein.
Electra
Active Member
If the oven contained all the ingredients for the pie and put them together, we would credit the oven. ;p
That is a general misconception before we knew any better and from lack of sex education. Sperm is 'food/fertiliser'
As I previously stated, it is possible for females to produce life with no male counterpart, called parthenogenesis, this has been observed in many confined animals and there is many human cases -
" In a lecture delivered before the New York Academy of Medicine in 1933, on “Immaculate Conception—a Scientific Possibility”, Dr. Walter Timme, eminent endocrinologist, presented evidence to prove that Immaculate Conception is physiologically possible. The parovarium of the female reproductive organs, he claims, in some cases can produce living spermatozoa capable of impregnating eggs in the same body, causing them to develop without male fertilization. "
Your argument speciously relies on your understanding of English grammar. And your understanding isn't very good to begin with, as the English "god" is gender-neutral. Even religions with explicitly gender-neutral deities typically just use "god" when speaking in English.
Even your own religion just calls Loki a "god' despite the fact he often changes his gender.
... But the "oven" in your analogy does not have all the ingredients. It is missing one.
Absolutely not, nourishment is provided from the mother. A description of sperm as "fertilizer" is worse than a description of sperm as a "seed". If you want a good analogy, sperm is "half the recipe" for the child.
That is absolute speculation and has never been shown in a human. Parthenogenesis has never been shown to occur in a mammal!! And that's a good thing, since human parthenogenesis-born offspring would suffer much more of the ill effects of inbreeding.
Why the debate over this?? Two people are ultimately needed to create a child. Both give life. Both are necessary until one of the many speculators can show an example of human parthenogenesis actually occurring. And even if that is shown, a woman creating a child all her own is an anomaly, which doesn't change the general rule that two people are required, and the poor child resulting from that is effectively inbred.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Only as sanzbir points out, it does not.
Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in many plants, some invertebrate animal species (including nematodes, water fleas, some scorpions and very rarely birds). This type of reproduction has been induced artificially in a few species including fish and amphibians.
There are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild.
Induced parthenogenesis in mice and monkeys often results in abnormal development. This is because mammals have imprinted genetic regions, where either the maternal or the paternal chromosome is inactivated in the offspring in order for development to proceed normally. A mammal created by parthenogenesis would have double doses of maternally imprinted genes and lack paternally imprinted genes, leading to developmental abnormalities.
There have been no human cases.
My understanding of English grammar is just fine. "God" is the male form of the word, "goddess" the female. It is not gender neutral and has not been for some time. The latest occurrence of gender-neutrality in the word's etymology is the Old German 'got' when it was still an adjective referring to anything that was invoked to or worshiped.
As for Loki, he is male. His instances of "changing gender" are illusion and magic, in all instances regarded as not his true form; ironically not the best example for transgenderism or gender fluidity.
Well my larger point was the idiocy of relying on an argument about English grammar in the first place when discussing a book that is not originally English.
But no, "god" is gender neutral or male in the same exact way that "man" and "men" are both gender neutral or male.
That's why religions like my own or Islam, where our God is explicitly stated to be genderless, use the word "god". Because like "men" the word "god" is neutral or male.
I will grant that both "god" and "men" are much more often used in a gendered sense in the modern era than they are used in a neutral sense today. But that's certainly not how the words were originally, nor were the words used that way when the first English translations came about.
Bro, he got pregnant and gave birth as a mare.
Loki is Sleipnir's mother. I'm pretty sure that that wasn't a mere illusion, either that or Odin's steed is really just Loki following him around with a pair of coconuts maintaining an illusion-horse. Also when he took the form of a fly during the forging of Mjolnir he could fly around and bite as if he was a fly. It's pretty obvious that Loki's shapeshifting is shapeshifting and not illusion. The illusion-happy Marvel villain is far from the mark of its inspiration. It could be because it's been a long while since I last read the Sagas, but I can't remember a single instance of Loki using illusion in anything I've read (outside of Marvel adaptations).
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
I'm not discussing a book. I'm talking about the word "god" and the male deity of Yahweh.
You've got two different words there - men and man. "God" singular is a male form of the word, whereas "gods" plural can be gender neutral as "men" can. But not very often, it's mostly become archaic.
The word "god" has been male since it came to refer specifically to male deities, after the Old German 'got' which was a word for deities in general. It is not used for female deities unless they are included in a plurality of "gods".
As told in the Prose Edda, according to Snorri, bro. In older myths it is told only that Loki distracted Svaðilfari, and returned with Sleipnir--the how is not explicitly spoken of, and Snorri assumed much for his narrative. I also clearly said illusions and magic, and that in every instance of Loki taking on another form or gender it is regarded as not his own.
More than this, you're citing myths - regarded as myths even by us - at me as though they are evidences. Loki is a god, not a goddess; a giant of the jötunn race, rather than a giantess.
It's never stated explicitly who or what the fly is during the forging of Mjolnir. It is only said that it is a fly, and is often assumed to be Loki or a product of Loki as it attempted to stop the dwarves from completing their task. In either instance, Loki is not a fly. Either he made a fly or he took the shape of a fly, but he is not a fly. It is much more likely that he used illusion, as flies don't bite hard enough to cause bleeding.
It is the same with Svaðilfari. Though he took the form of a mare and lured Svaðilfari away from Asgard, Loki is not a mare. He took the form, a form that is not his own.
In the Skáldskaparmal, using Freyja's falcon-feather cloak, Loki takes the shape of a falcon and flies to Jötunheimr to rescue Iðunn. There, using illusion, he makes her appear as a nut to smuggle her out from under Þjazi's nose.
In the Þrymskviða, Loki uses illusion to go as Thor's handmaiden to the hall of giants. He used illusion to mask himself as a flea and steal Freyja's necklace, Brísingamen. With the death of Baldur, Loki disguised (illusion) himself as the hag Thokk.
In every single instance, Loki is regarded as Loki, and whatever shape he takes or disguises himself as is not his true shape. Loki is a god. not a goddess.
The deity from a culture that didn't have a gendered word for deity. And somehow the English language is relative for this discussion!!
"Man" in singular was once gender neutral. English had the word "wereman" for male person specifically because 'man" was once just "person".
Even your own post states that the oldest term for "god" was originally a gender neutral term.
So your argument boils down to "Christian God is male because of this specific evolution of the English language" which is just patently ridiculous.
But that's not your only ridiculous claim here...
Oh boy...
Look man.
The old myths state that Loki, in the form of a Mare, went off with a Stallion, and months later came back with a baby horse.
If you think that story doesn't imply that he gave birth to the horse, either you are being willfully dense or you think the old Norse were pointlessly esoteric.
So, what, you're proposing that the ancients wanted us to think from that story that Loki went off with a magical stallion in the form of a mare and returned months later with a baby magical stallion that he... just randomly found I guess while screwing around for several months??
Those are some legit ridiculous hoops you are jumping through just to assert Loki didn't give birth as a female horse, when that is clearly the implication of the story!!