• 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!

Is God male or female?

Is God a male or a female?

  • Total voters
    27
Seeing as the universe began and grew and that is the only form of god i personally recognize it would be female, since it gave birth to galaxies, stars, planets and life in turn. If it was male it would have become bored after 500 million years and invented a talking magical puma.
 
Tucker Case said:
:lol: I would have done that after 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is where all these gods go after "retirement", you can find Osiris, Zeus and Thor playing with magical talking animals in the great caravan park in the sky... Somewhere in Florida.
 
Hdreamz said:
Perhaps that is where all these gods go after "retirement", you can find Osiris, Zeus and Thor playing with magical talking animals in the great caravan park in the sky... Somewhere in Florida.
Click to expand...

I think Neil Gaiman wrote a book about that.
 
Tucker Case said:
Assuming the existence of the Christian god,
Click to expand...
I wasn't assuming that.
one must logically deduce that it would have to be sexless being.
Click to expand...
If it existed, then perhaps, but the conceptualised god presented by the scriptures, which all make repeated reference to gender, is clearly male.

Why would people want their God to have a vestigial dick?
Click to expand...
Good question that has no answer.
 
Andalublue said:
I wasn't assuming that.
Click to expand...

I know. My point required the assumption, though.


If it existed, then perhaps, but the conceptualised god presented by the scriptures, which all make repeated reference to gender, is clearly male.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of reasons to refer to God as male in the scriptures without actually necessitating the existence of a vestigial penis. The primary one being that the culture to which the scriptures were aimed was a patriarchal culture. Logically speaking, it makes more sense for a sexless god to refer to itself as male given the audience it was targeting that it does for a being in a single-organism species to be male.

All of this, of course, assumes God exists.

Good question that has no answer.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does have an answer. Assuming that God does exist, the only logical explanation for God being referred to in the scriptures as male is that the scriptures are not intended by god to be taken literally, and that god was employing a persuasive rhetorical approach in his self-identification as "male".

But those who are adamant about God having a vestigial penis are also the people who make the assumption that the bible is to be taken literally and is incapable of any inaccuracies, even if they were intentional inaccuracies made by God for entirely persuasive rhetorical reasons.

The entire debate is ultimately a logical paradox caused by people's illogical assertion that the bible was designed by god to be a literal depiction of reality (rather than a book of stories and parables meant to teach lessons about life and morality).

By combining logical deductions, we can see that, at best, the Bible was intended by God to be a collection of lessons, not a historical account of reality. Those who chose to believe the latter is the case must therefore actively reject logic, since it is impossible to reach that belief in via valid and sound logic.
 
If you're a Christian, of course Jesus was a man.

God Himself has no gender.
 
Tucker Case said:
Trust me, having a vestigial dick ain't no picnic.
Click to expand...

But I always bring vegetable dicks to my picnics, Tucker

PhallicPeppers.jpg
 
Tucker Case said:
necessitating the existence of a vestigial penis.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kind of a penis a non-corporeal deity would have, but probably not a vestigial one, as this would imply that he once had a use for it but that it had become obsolete and subsequently degenerated.
 
Andalublue said:
I'm not sure what kind of a penis a non-corporeal deity would have, but probably not a vestigial one, as this would imply that he once had a use for it but that it had become obsolete and subsequently degenerated.
Click to expand...
If you think about it, Adam wouldn't have had a penis either. He'd have had no use for it, unless he was doing the sheep, until Eve came along. Penises certainly look like a last-minute addition.
 
Andalublue said:
I'm not sure what kind of a penis a non-corporeal deity would have, but probably not a vestigial one, as this would imply that he once had a use for it but that it had become obsolete and subsequently degenerated.
Click to expand...

I couldn't think of a word for totally useless and nonsensical body part that makes no damned sense whatsoever, so I went with the next best thing.
 
God is female. She would have to be to do all of that creating. She's also black as tar. Prepare yourself now so that you won't be standing at heaven's gate with your mouth hanging open like some kind of idiot.

Go forth and multiply:

2 x 2 = 4
12 x 9 = 108
415287.63 x 425.8 = 17708012.854
etc...
 
davidtaylorjr said:
He was, and Is.
Click to expand...

As that is not anything explicitly set forth in the Bible, your support for that is nothing more than your understanding, which again is rooted in the determination of the Council of Nicea in 327. The concept of the Trinity is a neat package that explains much buy also begs a ton of other questions. For example: If Jesus was God, how would Satan tempt him?
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
As that is not anything explicitly set forth in the Bible, your support for that is nothing more than your understanding. If Jesus was God, how would Satan tempt him?
Click to expand...

At the time he was 100% man as well. That's how.
 
maquiscat said:
I'm not saying that you are wrong in your thought, only in the seeming assertion that by being such a collective it precludes the deity status.
Click to expand...

An individual built from various changing parts would not be sovereign, thus would be more a slave than a deity. I don't believe in such a manifestation, but others could.
 
Or, there's no god.
 
maquiscat said:
Not necessarily. You make that assumption (most likely) based on the fact that we are a binary species, as indeed is most life on the planet. But if the Creator had decided on a trinary species (ref: Alien Nation's Tenctonese) you would probably be assuming a being that was the combination of all three.
.
Click to expand...

Poor communication on my part. I was trying to say that God is unlikely to be of human appearance and would be self-contained rather than being male, female or otherwise. It's hard for me to envision what the creator of the universe might actually "look" like, we're talking about a source of matter, time and energy, nothing comprehensible to the binary, carbon-based life forms we have evolved to. People tend to anthropomorphize "god" but that doesn't seem realistic, just convenient.
 
What's the obsession with male or female? It doesn't matter what God appears to be to us when discussing physical attributes. God may not have any at all. He or she or whatever is first and last spiritual. Anything other than the spiritual doesn't matter at all. In fact, one of the few things that distinguishes humans from other living things here is the spiritual element we all have, whether we recognize it or not. In fact, a lot of animal lovers here could testify that we are not alone in reasoning power. Animals may suck at it, but some of them do rational things and reasoning is a part of those events, however small.
 
specklebang said:
Poor communication on my part. I was trying to say that God is unlikely to be of human appearance and would be self-contained rather than being male, female or otherwise. It's hard for me to envision what the creator of the universe might actually "look" like, we're talking about a source of matter, time and energy, nothing comprehensible to the binary, carbon-based life forms we have evolved to. People tend to anthropomorphize "god" but that doesn't seem realistic, just convenient.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Specklebang! :2wave:

Excellent post. :thumbs: Anything that is powerful enough to create what we call the universe probably couldn't be described. We don't know enough yet, IMO. :peace:
 
If we're talking about the god described by the bible, he's always referred to as male. However the god described in the bible is also a singular entity that cannot reproduce, so genderless makes a lot of sense. If you can't reproduce, gender doesn't really have any meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom