If Jan is not a christian, then they are amzingly studious of common christian beliefs and philosophies.
why do unbelievers...
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
In the Japanese creation myth there is a Goddess.
But, the real reason is because we all know the sky-daddy is a reflection of our past need for an alpha-male monkey. So, to try to get theists to think, we say It or She. Which they hate to do and so it hurts their head and hence this thread.
Second of all, if you think of an all knowing all powerful God, that can not learn anything new or even feel emotions like "I'm shocked!" ... well, your god is like a big hard-drive, a memory device controlling a virtual world.
This thing you worship can't even "Think". "It's" therefor not even a rational being. So, I think IT is much more an apt term.
Nothing exists outside of space & time. As long as anything exists, there is space & time.
I think when atheists do it, it is to point out how the sex of a devine king is clearly the reflection of those that created this character in the first place. A male God in a patriarchal culture is entirely expected.
Michael,
Goddesses play a different role in universal affairs, to Gods.
So basically you use it to attack the theists sensibilities?
Have you read any scriptures?
If you have - like Bruce Lee at the start of Enter the Dragon where he chastises the boy student; What was that?
jan.
Goddesses play a different role in universal affairs, to Gods.
So basically you use it to attack the theists sensibilities?
Have you read any scriptures?
If you have - like Bruce Lee at the start of Enter the Dragon where he chastises the boy student; What was that?
jan.
CutsieMarie89,
Male and female is not a standard.
I don't believe that gender is a constraint.
jan.
Male and female is not a standard.
I don't believe that gender is a constraint.
jan.
But you have no evidence that God is a created character.
You conclusion only serves to justify your world view.
The fact is that God is scriptorally defined as male (energy) in his role, so why deny it.
jan.
Actually, creativity is more naturally characterized as a female trait.
Now you are asking the right questions!
Here comes the fun part, for all you belivers in a god/gods.
If it is not necessary for the god to have sex, why would he have ses?
Is it nesessary for scienceists to have sex to reproduce or are the able to recreate/make life in the lab?
Now I know that it is difficult for you belivers to think realistic but,
What would the beings made in the lab think about their creators?
Would they think of them as gods?
Would they stare up in awe?
Or does it matter at all what they do or do not do?
Why would you want to know that?
I suspect that God can create by any part of his spiritual anatomy, as everything must be absolutely equal to everything else, and I can't imagine there be need for any waste disposal units.
So before even attempting to answer that question, the question of "is it necessary" becomes the focus.
No it is not nesessary to know the genter of our creator.
But if you are thinking of heaven as being earth beliving in the same god and doing his bitting, then we as a race mighe as well become ants.
Everything is equal and there is no waste.
I suspect that God can create by any part of his spiritual anatomy, as everything must be absolutely equal to everything else, and I can't imagine there be need for any waste disposal units.
So before even attempting to answer that question, the question of "is it necessary" becomes the focus.
No it is not nesessary to know the genter of our creator.
But if you are thinking of heaven as being earth beliving in the same god and doing his bitting, then we as a race mighe as well become ants.
Everything is equal and there is no waste.
Varda,
does he have testicles? does he have a Y chromossome?[/quotes]
God is not material, scriptoral definition.
The dictionary describes "male" as;
...producing sperm: relating or belonging to the sex that produces sperm to fertilize female eggs
This is about procreation
Procreate means to produce offspring by reproduction.
So God procreates, but not in the way we do. In every scripture there is some example of Gods' creative ability, and none of them involve sexual intercourse (to my knowledge anyways).
Need I go into the genesis scenario?
That's just another silly point.
Why would God want a vagina?
If you care to seriously read up on the nature of God,
you will understand he is, ultimately, source of everything, so everything ultimately, must belongs to him.
Now whether or not you believe that, is not the question, so don't bother with the "there is no evidence" rhetoric.
You do not need to believe in something, in order to gather a basic understanding of that thing.
If by procreation, through interaction with material nature, then I suppose you could call it sex if you want to. But that definition wouldn't really explain the creative process described in scriptoral terms.
I realize how silly you are, and your attempts to degrade the topic.
Alot of atheists don't seem to be able to bring themselves to refer to God as "he" or "him", prefering to use terms like "it", "she".
jan.
The point of this thread is to find out why atheists, more often than not, do not refer to God as "he", why they prefer the labels "it" or "she".
Especially when, the being understood to be God (regardless of belief status) is referred to as "he".
Not to determined whether God is a male or female.
jan.
Think about it. No physical characteristics of a male, so we have to get into behavioral characteristics. In order to give God a gender, you'd have to be able to give him traits that belong only to a male.
And females. And where is this trait in God?
You could be an adolescent, too. Are you contending that God is a teenager? I mean, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about here, and now you're just stalling until you can find something on Google that supports your ridiculous effort to argue about God's gender.
You lost. Get over it.
Only humans can be he or she. God is such an extraordinary notion, I don't see how the normal labels could apply.
JDawg,
1) Let us make man in our own image?
2 Unless you're not from this planet there are difference between male and female, which can be labelled as characteristics.
3) Objects, and systems are also labelled as male and female.
4) A man actions can be called effeminate, and a womans actions can be called masculine.
5) People of a particular gender often feel they are not the gender they are percieved as.
6) not all male species carries the y chromosome, or has sexual intercourse to procreate.
If he is the original male, which is his scriptoral definition, not mine, why?
Females can be dominant, yes. And from my neck of the wood we regard that as a masculine signature. So yes, females have male traits and males have female traits. That would make sense if we are a combination of spirit and matter.
So I take it you won't be referring to God as he, despite the scriptoral designation. May I ask why?
Lost what?
Maybe you should focus on the discussion, rather than trying to win it, its so much more fun.
jan.
1) Let us make man in our own image?
2 Unless you're not from this planet there are difference between male and female, which can be labelled as characteristics.
3) Objects, and systems are also labelled as male and female.
4) A man actions can be called effeminate, and a womans actions can be called masculine.
5) People of a particular gender often feel they are not the gender they are percieved as.
6) not all male species carries the y chromosome, or has sexual intercourse to procreate.
If he is the original male, which is his scriptoral definition, not mine, why?
Females can be dominant, yes. And from my neck of the wood we regard that as a masculine signature. So yes, females have male traits and males have female traits. That would make sense if we are a combination of spirit and matter.
So I take it you won't be referring to God as he, despite the scriptoral designation. May I ask why?
Lost what?
Maybe you should focus on the discussion, rather than trying to win it, its so much more fun.
jan.
So what makes God a male?
Because it's never explained.
But in other necks of the woods, dominance would be considered a female trait.
When did I say I wouldn't be?
I've already won. You maintain that God is male, and even tried to argue why he was male, then failed, and now you're falling back on this "scriptural definition" BS because you know you can't support it. But in doing so, you've just demonstrated that you're an unthinking, unquestioning lemming.
And in what universe do you live in where humans don't have gender? It drives most people crazy if they don't know what gender someone is. And all human notions are constraints when placed upon a being like God.
And in what universe do you live?
I am not sure whether, for example, "infinitely merciful" or "infinitely powerful" are human notions, but they sure don't seem constraining to me.