• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

God's Gender

What is god's gender?

  • Total voters
    27
soylentgreen said:
Yes, the important word there is "assume". Not that god or santa need exist but that we merely assume that the imaginary creature has characteristics that can be debated.

Your making the humorous mistake of assuming that because we can debate something then that something must exist.

And your first sentence does in fact back what i say. Society imagines a god in their image, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
You're transparent, man!
Are you incapable of recognizing that you are doing exactly what you condemn here?
Not that god or santa need exist but that we merely assume that the imaginary creature has characteristics that can be debated.
Click to expand...
Allow me to help you. You are going on about assuming the existence of God in order to talk about God, even as you assume the inexistence of God ("imaginary creature") in order to criticize those who assume the existence of God.

You appear to be incapable of keeping God and the concept of God separate in your thoughts; moreover, you fail to recognize that you are doing the very thing you're criticizing.
Must we waste more bandwidth on this silliness?
 
Angel said:
Read again. My answer is "it depends on the cultural origin of the concept." If that sentence possesses no meaning for you, then assuming the requisite reading competence your bona fides in starting this thread deserves some scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Just more word salad, but then again, this is sort of like your modus operandi, so its not a surprise.
 
PoS said:
Just more word salad, but then again, this is sort of like your modus operandi, so its not a surprise.
Click to expand...
What are you on about here? So you are just trolling after all? I mean, what's with you, man? "Word salad"? My post sets forth the basic understanding of the distinction between God and the concept of God, and replies to your "poll" in good faith and in simple and direct English. In future I'll think twice before replying to any thread or post of yours, that's for sure.
 
I voted none.

An omnipotent being doesn't need a gender, as it is only useful for mortal reproduction.

Or to put it another way, a deity can create life with the snap of its fingers, it doesn't need to get jiggy withit in order to do so.
 
RAMOSS said:
Uh.. In the Jewish scriptures, in the original langauges, some of the terms for God are feminine. "The Holy SPirit' for example is feminine in Hebrew.
Click to expand...

Okay, I didn't know that.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
It depends on which god concept we are talking about. The Abrahamic god certainly identifies as male. Pagans and Hindus have both gods and goddesses. If we are talking about the impersonal creator god of deism then that god has no gender.
Click to expand...

Exactly... I mean, since I believe in the Abrahamic God of The Holy Bible, I would assert that God (as in God the Father specifically) is male. But, the way this poll question was asked, I had to answer none because it doesn't specify which god(s)...
 
PoS said:
Interesting discussion from previous threads. I have heard that god has both male and female traits, though in my upbringing god has been traditionally male. So what is your opinion?
Click to expand...

Well, I believe in the literal interpretation where in most of the early part of Genesis, the word God is plural form. Assuming we were formed in their image, that would mean both male and female.
 
Angel said:
You're transparent, man!
Are you incapable of recognizing that you are doing exactly what you condemn here?

Allow me to help you. You are going on about assuming the existence of God in order to talk about God, even as you assume the inexistence of God ("imaginary creature") in order to criticize those who assume the existence of God.

You appear to be incapable of keeping God and the concept of God separate in your thoughts; moreover, you fail to recognize that you are doing the very thing you're criticizing.


Must we waste more bandwidth on this silliness?
Click to expand...

An imaginary creature does not have to exist in order to discuss it. I do not need to, nor am i assuming the existence of a god in order to critique its imaginary qualities.

in order to criticize those who assume the existence of God.
Click to expand...
I strongly object to your moving of the goal posts here. Do not forget you are the one who used the word "ens'. Or is it the little word "ens" that is tripping you up? Please allow me to enlighten you as to the meaning of the word.

ens, noun, plural
an existing or real thing; an entity.

But now apparently, its existence is just an assumption. Please make up your mind. Is it

" That ens to which the various concepts refer transcends taxonomy of any sort." or is it

"That assumption to which the various concepts refer transcends taxonomy of any sort.
 
God has appeared to me carrying a message in many forms
God chooses the form that will be most receptive to you.
 
soylentgreen said:
An imaginary creature does not have to exist in order to discuss it. I do not need to, nor am i assuming the existence of a god in order to critique its imaginary qualities.


I strongly object to your moving of the goal posts here. Do not forget you are the one who used the word "ens'. Or is it the little word "ens" that is tripping you up? Please allow me to enlighten you as to the meaning of the word.

ens, noun, plural
an existing or real thing; an entity.

But now apparently, its existence is just an assumption. Please make up your mind. Is it

" That ens to which the various concepts refer transcends taxonomy of any sort." or is it

"That assumption to which the various concepts refer transcends taxonomy of any sort.
Click to expand...
Are you back again?
Look, there are two sentences in that post of mine (#3) over which you are obsessing in order to save face after your ill-considered comments on it -- one sentence about the concept of God (in response to the gender question in the poll) and a second sentence about God the Being (in reply to the "Other" option in the poll). And because you cannot distinguish in your mind concept from existent, you in this latest post of yours conflate my two sentences. But your confusion is not my confusion, and trying to pass your confusion onto me is not going to work with me. Please take your confusion elsewhere, and stop wasting my time with it. Thank you.
 
Angel said:
Are you back again?
Look, there are two sentences in that post of mine (#3) over which you are obsessing in order to save face after your ill-considered comments on it -- one sentence about the concept of God (in response to the gender question in the poll) and a second sentence about God the Being (in reply to the "Other" option in the poll). And because you cannot distinguish in your mind concept from existent, you in this latest post of yours conflate my two sentences. But your confusion is not my confusion, and trying to pass your confusion onto me is not going to work with me. Please take your confusion elsewhere, and stop wasting my time with it. Thank you.
Click to expand...

I have no problem here with either concept or existence. Your first sentence tells us god is nothing but a concept. Your second is the usual lie that a god exists without giving one good reason or perhaps is you telling us you do not understand what ens means.
 
soylentgreen said:
I have no problem here with either concept or existence. Your first sentence tells us god is nothing but a concept. Your second is the usual lie that a god exists without giving one good reason or perhaps is you telling us you do not understand what ens means.
Click to expand...
You most certainly do have a problem with concept and existent (and this is the word I used, not "existence," which apparently is the word you mistakenly read).
Here are the latest corrections of your persistent confusions:
1. No, my first sentence does not assert that "god is nothing but a concept" -- my first sentence asserts that the concept of God varies from culture to culture.
2. No, the existence of God needs no argument or defense in this thread.
Is all anti-theism as dense as your posts in this exchange make it out to be?
Please go away.
 
Angel said:
You most certainly do have a problem with concept and existent (and this is the word I used, not "existence," which apparently is the word you mistakenly read).
Here are the latest corrections of your persistent confusions:
1. No, my first sentence does not assert that "god is nothing but a concept" -- my first sentence asserts that the concept of God varies from culture to culture.
2. No, the existence of God needs no argument or defense in this thread.
Is all anti-theism as dense as your posts in this exchange make it out to be?
Please go away.
Click to expand...

I think the question was "what gender is God" as in, the God, the God who exists (according to the reader).

If I ask the question "what do dragons look like?" There would be different answers based on the belief of the person :

Person A : Believes in dragons
"Oh, dragons are large lizard like creatures. They breathe fire and have wings much like those of a bat. I do think dragons in China don't have wings though, they're more serpent like and have curly mustaches."

Person B : Does NOT believe in dragons
"Well, it depends what culture you're refering to. In some cultures, dragons are presented as large land lizards, no wings. In others, they breathe fire and conquer castles. It really depends."

What I'm trying to say is : if you believe something exists, and you're asked a question about that thing, why refer to the other concepts ? Aren't they "fake" ?
It doesn't make sense to me to say "well it depends which concept you're talking about" if you believe only one of them is true.

Unless your agnostic, in which case the point of the thread, I think, is : what is the gender of the God you believe in ?
 
Cisero said:
I think the question was "what gender is God" as in, the God, the God who exists (according to the reader).

If I ask the question "what do dragons look like?" There would be different answers based on the belief of the person :

Person A : Believes in dragons
"Oh, dragons are large lizard like creatures. They breathe fire and have wings much like those of a bat. I do think dragons in China don't have wings though, they're more serpent like and have curly mustaches."

Person B : Does NOT believe in dragons
"Well, it depends what culture you're refering to. In some cultures, dragons are presented as large land lizards, no wings. In others, they breathe fire and conquer castles. It really depends."

What I'm trying to say is : if you believe something exists, and you're asked a question about that thing, why refer to the other concepts ? Aren't they "fake" ?
It doesn't make sense to me to say "well it depends which concept you're talking about" if you believe only one of them is true.

Unless your agnostic, in which case the point of the thread, I think, is : what is the gender of the God you believe in ?
Click to expand...

LOL good luck with getting a straight answer from him...
 
Cisero said:
...
What I'm trying to say is : if you believe something exists, and you're asked a question about that thing, why refer to the other concepts ? Aren't they "fake" ?
It doesn't make sense to me to say "well it depends which concept you're talking about" if you believe only one of them is true.

Unless your agnostic, in which case the point of the thread, I think, is : what is the gender of the God you believe in ?
Click to expand...
Everyone who believes in the existence of God must rely on a concept as to the nature of God. Different cultures have produced different religions, and different religions have different concepts of God.
 
Angel said:
Everyone who believes in the existence of God must rely on a concept as to the nature of God. Different cultures have produced different religions, and different religions have different concepts of God.
Click to expand...

But if your God is the one true God who exists, he's not a "concept" anymore.

Concepts as mental representations, where concepts are entities that exist in the mind (mental objects)

If I want to paint something, in my mind I have different "concepts" to chose from. However, once I paint the piece, the other concepts lose their relevancy because now, only one concept has been brought out of my head and into the "common" world.
If someone tells me "hey what color is that painting?" I won't answer "it depends which concept you're refering to." No. The question clearly indicates the asker wants to know the color of the painting that is not a concept, but something that exists outside of your personal, abstract, beliefs.
 
Cisero said:
But if your God is the one true God who exists, he's not a "concept" anymore.

Concepts as mental representations, where concepts are entities that exist in the mind (mental objects)

If I want to paint something, in my mind I have different "concepts" to chose from. However, once I paint the piece, the other concepts lose their relevancy because now, only one concept has been brought out of my head and into the "common" world.
If someone tells me "hey what color is that painting?" I won't answer "it depends which concept you're refering to." No. The question clearly indicates the asker wants to know the color of the painting that is not a concept, but something that exists outside of your personal, abstract, beliefs.
Click to expand...
Yes, every person who believes in God believes in the true God. To make use of your example. If two artists belonging to different religions were tasked to paint a picture of God, they would turn out two different pictures. But the reality behind both pictures is one and the same Godhead differently conceived and represented.
 
PoS said:
Interesting discussion from previous threads. I have heard that god has both male and female traits, though in my upbringing god has been traditionally male. So what is your opinion?
Click to expand...

If there is a god, it will not be male or female or anthropomorphic in any way shape or form.
 
Angel said:
Yes, every person who believes in God believes in the true God. To make use of your example. If two artists belonging to different religions were tasked to paint a picture of God, they would turn out two different pictures. But the reality behind both pictures is one and the same Godhead differently conceived and represented.
Click to expand...

Ah, so Parvati, Yahweh, Akal Purakh, Ahura Mazda, Visnhu, Shiva are all the same God ?
 
Cisero said:
Ah, so Parvati, Yahweh, Akal Purakh, Ahura Mazda, Visnhu, Shiva are all the same God ?
Click to expand...
Well, to be precise "God" is itself a concept. I would put it this way: Parvati, Yahweh, Akal Purakh, Ahura Mazda, Visnhu, Shiva are different conceptions (within the same religion) of the one divine reality I believe that one divine reality receives conceptualization also, as Brahman.

Transcendental Spiritual Reality is The Great Mystery, not solved by our conceptions of it (though we must believe it solved), but resolved as well as the limited understanding and limited imagination of Mankind allows.
 
Cisero said:
Ah, so Parvati, Yahweh, Akal Purakh, Ahura Mazda, Visnhu, Shiva are all the same God ?
Click to expand...
Please note my bonehead typo in post #45:
Angel said:
Apropos of your link, let's put it this way: Divinity cannot be cognized with a concept.
Click to expand...
What I intended to write is rather:

Apropos of your link, let's put it this way: Divinity cannot be cognized without a concept.
 
Angel said:
Well, to be precise "God" is itself a concept. I would put it this way: Parvati, Yahweh, Akal Purakh, Ahura Mazda, Visnhu, Shiva are different conceptions (within the same religion) of the one divine reality I believe that one divine reality receives conceptualization also, as Brahman.

Transcendental Spiritual Reality is The Great Mystery, not solved by our conceptions of it (though we must believe it solved), but resolved as well as the limited understanding and limited imagination of Mankind allows.
Click to expand...

So, and please correct me if I'm wrong, all these different religions are an interpretation of the one ultimate divine truth ? Would that mean that every single religion is right, and wrong, at the same time ? Is no sacred text true or real ? Since they are merely writing based on a imagined concept of an abstract reality.

My head hurts.
 
Cisero said:
So, and please correct me if I'm wrong, all these different religions are an interpretation of the one ultimate divine truth ? Would that mean that every single religion is right, and wrong, at the same time ? Is no sacred text true or real ? Since they are merely writing based on a imagined concept of an abstract reality.

My head hurts.
Click to expand...

My head is up my ass apparently -- I made another mistake in reading.quoting your post#46. I didn't see Yahweh there and replied as if you were referring to the various gods of Hinduism. I stand by the point I made, but of course Yahweh is not a Hindu concept.

So, and please correct me if I'm wrong, all these different religions are an interpretation of the one ultimate divine truth ?
Click to expand...
This is what I'm saying, yes.

As to what this means...
Would that mean that every single religion is right, and wrong, at the same time ? Is no sacred text true or real ? Since they are merely writing based on a imagined concept of an abstract reality.
Click to expand...
I like the opening of this statement a lot, it resonates with something like a Schrodinger's Cat paradoxicality, but I would season the latter bits with a little humility: I mean, these sacred texts are related to claims of revelations, visions, spiritual experiences and insights the profundity of which is also a mystery, lower case m. However the Vedas came to be, and whatever insight they may provide into The Great Mystery, they provide the practicing Hindu's access code to The Great Mystery and as such cannot be dismissed as "mere" imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom