If God turned out to be a woman, would you lose your faith?

Post Reply New Topic

God is neither a man or a woman. He is just represented as a male because when Christianty and Jewdism were founded, everyone had this mindset that males were dominant.

Both male and female were created in God's image. As to Jesus, He was male because that is what was required to propagate the message sufficiently at that time for it to get out.

(Which makes it very interesting when Jesus speaks of feeling like a mother hen who wants to gather in her chicks, as He looks upon Jerusalem...though He came into the world as male, it does seem He was still aware of the fact that God was far more.)

And of course, in that famous miracle at the feast when Jesus laid all those eggs it was a big surprise.

Um...no.

Well, sure as hell I would have been surprised. It takes all kinds.

It's god who lays the eggs....big old goose eggs whenever you look for him.

0000


editeded

Last edited by skafather84 on 03 Aug 2010, 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well, of course you can't find the eggs, Ska - He hides them, while dressed as a bunny!

Egg management fee topic

This Bugs me.

OR:
man created god in his own image, with the same misogynist tendencies.

Women were put here for men? Where do you get off?

lol

@ topic, Not really. Besides, "Goddess" sounds more fitting for an all-loving, all-forgiving, all-caring higher being, so I wouldn't mind.

Last edited by Dnuos on 03 Aug 2010, 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In that case it would be MTFY.

We are supposed to be here for each other. Adam had to be taught that he needed a woman with him to be complete (and there are a lot of interesting implications to the fact that God taught Adam by allowing him to develop a "negative" emotion and to notice the lack for himself--but that would be a MASSIVE derailment and a whole other thread): imagine being the only one capable of understanding oneself and God, and developing the idea of speech...or heck, it could even have been sign language at that time, but it would be language in a sense that the other homo sapiens would not have had. Imagine seeing others that looked like you but were so clearly not the same in terms of knowing who they were and being able to express it. And to have sexual drives, to be interested in women but not be able to relate to any of them because Adam's mind and soul operated so differently.

(Think maybe a lot of us can relate to that in a certain sense... )

Had the first to become self-aware been a woman, I think the exact same thing would have happened in that she would have become aware of that lack, of that knowledge that she was not compatible on that level with the males of her species because her understanding was so far beyond them. Being one gender or the other is not an important fact for that particular part of the Creation story.

Now frankly, I think most people miss the point when they look at what happens in the story of Adam and Eve. The sexist order we experience now is in fact a distortion of what was supposed to be, NOT the correct order.

One very interesting thing to notice is that of all of the curses given after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Bible, only those against women did society claim it was somehow wrong to work against it. Look at the man's curse: he is cursed with his work requiring the sweat of his brow for disproportionately little yield. If we treated that the same way as the curses against women (pain in childbirth, subjugation by men), then any work-saving invention would be by definition sinful. Anything that spared a man physical labor would be wrong, under that interpretation. Yet technological advancement has been supported by most Christian and Jewish believers.

So very clearly there is a double standard of interpretation--and the attempts (and there were millennia of them) to perpetuate the enmity instead of healing it have been against what was originally intended.

Monkeys Apes and hominids were good enough for my ancestors. Adam was just fussy.

Didn't you know that Lilith was prior to Eve, and because she was the first feminist, God expelled her from Paradise and replaced her with a new woman, and from Adam's rib this time?

With good reason...especially when you have the concept of consent operating on an entirely different level, with Adam. Going with any option below that standard would be REALLY wrong.

For "Adam" to be created first, he would not have any genitals. (no need to mate)

Along comes "Eve" - this would cause a problem as the previous "Adam" is now a defect and must be returned to have the "fault" rectified.

How would these two people know what their genitals/reproductive organs were for - and how to use them?

If god was a man, then to be a man as recognised today, would need genitals, and to have these would mean the ability to procreate. The ability to keep the species going.

To me, god is neither male nor female. the idea that "God must be a man" probably comes from something that was feasible in ancient times where the women were probably considered weaker and a weak god is a useless god.

We ask many thing from god and still claim to be servants. From what I remember, servants don't ask for anything, they just do as they're told. So how can "servants" do as they're told when there is no real proof that a task has been given?

Has no-one really looked into what "heaven" must be like?

People see it as all being bliss and perfect. As a human, this is BS. You'd get bored and it would seen be hell. Then there would be other people who annoy the s**t out of you. How is that heaven?

At least with Hell, your mind is going to be on other things. (if you still have a mind) At this rate - the real heaven is what we think of as hell.

Anyone else really thought what it would be like in such a place - realistically?