G!d don't care (but that is another subject) whether you say she, he, or it...just please...not all at once.
Who says god doesn't care? Never heard him say he doesn't care. It amazes me how simple things are but some try to make things more complicated than they are. Fact : The original hebrew(you can ask a rabbi if you dont believe me) said And HUMAN was created in the image of the CREATOR(s). Creator(s) is singular and plural as well as being three.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The original translation did NOT say GOD or him. It said So the Creator(S) made human in their own image. Creator(s) in the hebrew is two: one male and one female that even though are two are also one as well and even being three. A very complex being. Human beings were in this likeness before the fall. The fall was caused by a split of the male and female pairs and now wholes were halfs. Saying that god is some sexless being as some suggest is grossly inaccurate. I think god does care, not only that people know he has gender , but also that he does have a female counterpart that is half of what he is as a whole. I am not trying to be rude so I hope you do not take my comments that way. I am simply saying that its fairly simple and people tend to make things more complicated than they are.
I don't believe G!d to be a being....but principle, in spirit, spirit, in principle....something does not exist everywhere as human/G!d being nor do i give it anthropormorphic properties as in the allegories of genesis walking and looking, and calling for A&E...
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Thomas and wil come closest to my belief. G!d is "gone beyond" and not limited to gender or physical existence or time or anything else positive.
Try on the G!d of Spinoza or Aurobindo or Rabia or Guru Granth Sahib or Bahá'u'lláh or Thomas Kelly or Whitehead. I believe that the D!vine is "something like" them all.
"Emptiness is form", "that which can be named is not the way", "if you call out any of the names of G!d the universe echos inside you".
Try on the G!d of Spinoza or Aurobindo or Rabia or Guru Granth Sahib or Bahá'u'lláh or Thomas Kelly or Whitehead. I believe that the D!vine is "something like" them all.
"Emptiness is form", "that which can be named is not the way", "if you call out any of the names of G!d the universe echos inside you".
Etu Malku
Mercuræn
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 38
Who are you kidding?
Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them."
The Judeo-Christian bible isn't much better:
I Corinthians 11:3
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
I Corinthians 11:8-9
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
The way I see it, all three Abrahamic religions have taken strides to remove the "pagan" goddess worship from their practice relegating Her to a subordinate role.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
[satire]Well, she prolly just got too prideful and stuck up by thinking she could be equal to the male image of god, so had to be cast down and made low.[/satire]
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
It's kinda-sorta hard to understand that being misogynistic (in today's context) is not the same as the noun "Al-illah" or "Ehyeh" being neutral in gender. They are roughly "the Diety" and "I am". Neither of which stipulate male or female.
This sounds like some new age belief that is foreign to basic theology. I do not understand how some people can think that GOD is beyond gender. Man was created in the image and likeness of GOD. Man has gender so why would anyone think he is beyond gender. There is a place of oneness of GOD that is said to be beyond gender but it is the oneness of god and his female counterpart. They are not separate like fallen man is who split from the counterpart in the beginning causing that fall. The oneness is a part of the whole being. GOD and his female counterpart are ONE: even though two as well as three. This shows there are three parts that make up ONE Creator. The male and female in genesis were (human beings) created in this image and the two were literally one complex entity. Man cannot live infinitely alone. He must have his female counterpart to have infinite life. Look all around you. Can men alone reproduce? No. Is the female the exact anatomical and psychological opposite of a man? Yes. Its like right and left brain. If the human race was in its original condtion the male and female would be one each being half of the whole. The energy transferred between the two directly keeps the two immortal. THe two are needed even if you want to get into whole brain theology needed for infinite life. The existance of intelligent life in a place where death doesnt occur or ageing is an entity that will always consist of a male and female who are one, two and three. Plato made reference to the fall. He talked about how human beings were originally in this state. Sex is very sacred. Sex keeps the two one and is so sacred that is should never be outside that infinite entity. That is how the fall occurred to begin with.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
On the contrary, the quotes are from religious texts much older then that RSV you use (the Daniel quote is a dead give away).
In your holy book, G!d may have been made in "His" image. In many other and far older, more theological texts, that is not the case.
Theology is not about a specific text one can quote with certainty. Rather, it is about using the tools G!d gave us to explore the why of the D!vine.
Nothing new-age there. Notice you had no reply for the other post.
In your holy book, G!d may have been made in "His" image. In many other and far older, more theological texts, that is not the case.
Theology is not about a specific text one can quote with certainty. Rather, it is about using the tools G!d gave us to explore the why of the D!vine.
Nothing new-age there. Notice you had no reply for the other post.
You are referring to Eloha which is the oneness of the two. It is singular. It however goes hand in hand with Elo-him and Elo-her. Eloher has somehow gotton lost in modern day theology. Even angels have counterparts. If you notice all the angels have el in their identity and archangels all have el at the end of their name. For example Micha-el and Gabri-el.
El (deity)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see El (disambiguation).
Ēl depicted with two lions on the back of the handle of the Gebel el-Arak Knife[dubious – discuss][1]
ʾĒl (written aleph-lamed, e.g. Ugaritic: , Phoenician: , Classical Syriac: ܐܠ, Hebrew: אל, Arabic: إل or إله, cognate to Akkadian: ilu) is a Northwest Semitic word meaning "Deity".
In the Canaanite religion, or Levantine religion as a whole, Ēl or Il was the supreme God, the Father of humankind and all creatures and the husband of the Goddess Asherah as recorded in the clay tablets of Ugarit (modern Ra′s Shamrā - Arabic: رأس شمرا, Syria).[2]
The noun ʾEl was found at the top of a list of Gods as the "Ancient of Gods" or the "Father of all Gods", in the ruins of the royal archive of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC. The bull was symbolic to Ēl and his son Baʻal Hadad, and they both wore bull horns on their headdress.[3][4][5][6] He may have been a desert god at some point, as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. Ēl had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yam, and Mot.El (deity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For every arch angel there is an archia
Twin Flames~ Archangels & Archeia
Archangels are superior or higher-ranking angels. Archeia(Plural Archeiai) are the female counterpart of male Archangels.
Archangel Michael ~ Archeia/ Twin Flame Faith
Archangel Michael "Who is like God ?" Archeia/Twin Flame - Faith Protection, faith, Will of God, power, perfection, motivation, courage, direction 1st ray-White and Blue Flame Lapis is a stone that protects from both physical and psychic attacks. It enhances awareness, promoting will power and encourages kindness and helpfulness. It helps the individual to rule over personal spiritual kingdom. Sodalite brings inner peace and stimulates endurance. Pearl brings purity and promotes faith, charity, and integrity, truth and loyalty.Archangles-Twin Flames
See my point?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
You are entirely off the mark. Quit using quotes from other sources that are only peripherally related. I provided the very definition of two important terms for G!d ("I am that I am" is, youy realize the only direct quote from the L!rd in the OT) and your reply has nothing to do with either.
I am merely trying to show that (regardless of what we are taught or what we have heard or read) the issue of G!d's gender is (at least) questionable within the Western Monotheistic Religious tradition.
You do not have to agree. But if you want to add to the discussion, provide reasoning and responses, not quotes.
I am merely trying to show that (regardless of what we are taught or what we have heard or read) the issue of G!d's gender is (at least) questionable within the Western Monotheistic Religious tradition.
You do not have to agree. But if you want to add to the discussion, provide reasoning and responses, not quotes.
I say study study study. Information on the meaning of the original text as well as history research does a world of good in correct interpretation. Without this your simply making stuff up on your own and its not scripturally sound. I will continue to post references as proof of what I am talking about from another source other than myself. It shows I am not just making stuff up.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
And meanwhile you ignore the cold, unmitigated fact that "Al-illah" is an Arabic neutral noun for "The Diety" and "Ehyeh" is a Hebrew neutral noun for "I am".
Hmmmm. Fine, I look for discussion and give-and-take. Is it possible that G!d has a gender? I do not deny that. I merely point out that there is good reason ("sufficient justification") to believe that the D!vine is too big, too important, too crucial to be limited in such a trivial way.
The only direct quote (from D!vine speech) giving us a hint in the OT or NT (now I could be wrong here) is that of Ehyeh.
Hmmmm. Fine, I look for discussion and give-and-take. Is it possible that G!d has a gender? I do not deny that. I merely point out that there is good reason ("sufficient justification") to believe that the D!vine is too big, too important, too crucial to be limited in such a trivial way.
The only direct quote (from D!vine speech) giving us a hint in the OT or NT (now I could be wrong here) is that of Ehyeh.
I agree, but that includes reading informed commentaries from reliable sources, and listening to the views of those you might not agree with.
Most of what you're saying about the gender of the deity is flat wrong, you're just assuming meanings from a little bit of knowledge.
There are many streams that feed into Jewish beliefs, but the Jews did not become 'monotheist' until Abraham, and even then well beyond that, it's pretty evident that belief was 'negotiable' and tended to slip!
That point seems to have vexed the Prophets more than any other, after all.
So from Adam and Eve to Abraham we can say the Jews were most likely polytheist, and where monotheist, it was local. Abraham did not have the insight Moses had. One of my favourite of the Divine Names is El-Shaddai, which means 'God of the Mountain' and probably refers to a local deity.
The assumption that from Genesis 1:1 to the last verse of Revelations, we're all talking about the same God, is way, way off the mark.
The genius of the scribe is in realising that although the ancients might have been talking about a polytheist deity, or a local god who lived on a hill, it's the same God bringing man to an ever-deepening understanding ... that's the way I read it, anyway. That seems the most human and compassionate approach.
St Paul to the Athenians said the same thing — I'm preaching to you about the 'unknown god' — I know Him, I've met Him!
Scholarship would also argue that Hebrew angelology is in fact a rather neat way of dealing with polytheism — you make the chief deity God, and all the rest you demote to angels. Polytheism to monotheism in one easy step.
If you think that's tricky or bad ... I think I could demonstrate, with very little trouble indeed, that most Catholics are technically tri-theists — Karl Rahner certainly thought so, but he did so with compassion and understanding, not criticism ... he was just pointing out the doctrine is not easy to grasp.
When doing my degree, we had a discussion on the Trinity in which the presiding tutor was ready to bet money that not one of us could talk about the subject for 30 seconds without drifting into heresy. No-one took him up on the bet, but good grief, did we get through some heresies that night!
(You seem to have elevated Archangel Michael to a deity, by the way?)
The Holy Trinity is like 'the Irish Question' — that's what we call the study of Anglo-Irish relations in history in the UK, and as the Irishman said, 'if you think you've got the answer, you've misunderstood the question.'
And the nature of God is the same.
First rule:
God is not a thing like other things — God is in a class of One (and Three),
so nothing that applies to anything necessarily applies to God.
You would be surprised at how much information on scripture and theology I have been through. I spent 7 years going through tons of books, web sites ect every single day for hours on end. There are two aspects of the trinity. There is Spirit , soul and body. Then there is the aspect of the male and female and the oneness of the two being one complex entity. Then there is what I call the four leaf clover. Spirit which is a white light that is pure consciousness, soul which is multicolored colored light which for each individual has a different patter similar to dna models. The literal soul part is not felt with the bodies because of the separation of it due to the fall. You can only feel those soul essences on the level of the senses because the body is like the skin for the spirit and soul. Then there is the most sacred 4th part which is the sexual part which is a black light. Literally sexual spirit energy. I can provide theological references for what I just said but this is my own words and not someone elses.
You mean YHWH which is the letters from the hebrew for I AM but pronounced in english Yahweh. Allah means GOD in english or The Diety. It means the same thing as the Hebrew Elohim. Your right GOD is really big. Heavenly beings are actually much bigger than human beings , giants in comparison. GOD is the biggest of all. Look at ancient cultures that show "The GODS as giants" That is literal. When people just read the bible for example and do not do research and much study they usually come out with misinterpretation. One example I like to give it John the Baptist. Years ago the catholic church would have paintings to show the peasants because most of them could not read. One painting that I saw some years back shows john the baptist with his head intact but also holding a gold platter with his head on it. It means that a holy beheading is the removal of the carnal mind and replacement with the divine mind. This is how you correctly reason scripture. Look at some Islamics they think the holy koran means to actually chop someones head off when it means what that painting shows. A really good book to go along with the bible is a book called Signs and Symbols of the Holy Bible.
have at it folks... I can't take it....
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Question donnann, when was the first recorded use of the word 'Eloher'?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Go look up the words... "I AM THAT I AM" is not the male y+(h-w-h) "to be" with a third person male prefix (the first yod). If I am not mistaken Sh'mot in the fourth aliyah (Exodus 3:1–15) reads "אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה" (pronounced Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh and properly translated "I am that I am"). Not "He who is" (roughly the tetragrammaton's proper translation).
Even looking at Wikipedia will cover this. "The Scandal of Divine Presence" by Jrry Martin (Chair Emeratus , Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado at Boulder) published in 2011 at SSRN.COM (and I think available from LSU on-line) provides data and some very good secondary sources.
But I do not think cutting hairs about this serves anyone as wil says. Peace and Silence.
Even looking at Wikipedia will cover this. "The Scandal of Divine Presence" by Jrry Martin (Chair Emeratus , Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado at Boulder) published in 2011 at SSRN.COM (and I think available from LSU on-line) provides data and some very good secondary sources.
But I do not think cutting hairs about this serves anyone as wil says. Peace and Silence.