God, gender and women's place in abrahamic religions

heaven_id said:
Behold:


Quote:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection, but I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

-1 Timothy 2:11, 2:12

That isn't Jesus Christ teaching, that was Paul's.
Click to expand...

Christianity as we know it is founded on the teachings of Paul, and not Jesus who is seldom quoted in the Bible. Further, it is always claimed that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired: is this a lie?
 
The Lord said:
Christianity as we know it is founded on the teachings of Paul, and not Jesus who is seldom quoted in the Bible. Further, it is always claimed that the authors of the Bible were divinely inspired: is this a lie?
Click to expand...

Horse puckey. Jesus gave us the Divine message, and Paul presented structure to a structurless system...

Anarchy, is dangerous...especially in religious beliefs...you know that as well as me.
 
Quahom1 said:
Hmmm, God is an eunich? Don't think I'd dare say that to His face...;)
Click to expand...

Do not think of God in anthropomorphic terms, at least not when talking about all the Abrahamic religions. God has no sexual organs or functions. We cannot castrate Him. He has no gender at all, because He has no body.

The reason we refer to Him as Him is because our languages were formed in a gendered society. We, humans and not God, refer to things as either male or female, even inanimate objects. Few are the languages that would have a pronoun for “it,” but even then it would be considered derogatory. Notice that in English, which has an “it,” we still use “he” or “she” for things we would normally use “it” if we did not hold these things dear to ourselves. Example: America is served well by “her” citizens. Or, “she” is my cat, or, “he” is a loyal dog. Notice that we used she for a cat (a non-trustworthy animal) and he for a dog (man’s best friend), unless she is a bitch (a female dog, another interesting choice of words).

In Semitic languages, as far as I know, there are no pronouns for “it.” Things are either male or female, with the highest orders being referred to in the masculine pronouns. However, and this is interesting, and I am speaking more of Islam and Arabic about which I am more familiar than Judaism and Hebrew, things are not as they appear in English. Allah, as a proper name, has no gender. While it appears masculine in language usage, you cannot derive a feminine form from it. The is no “Allahah,” and if you make it “al-Ilaha” then it is not a proper name anymore. An expert in the Arabic language might want to comment on this, whether right or wrong.
 
The Lord said:
Do not think of God in anthropomorphic terms, at least not when talking about all the Abrahamic religions. God has no sexual organs or functions. We cannot castrate Him. He has no gender at all, because He has no body.

The reason we refer to Him as Him is because our languages were formed in a gendered society. We, humans and not God, refer to things as either male or female, even inanimate objects. Few are the languages that would have a pronoun for “it,” but even then it would be considered derogatory. Notice that in English, which has an “it,” we still use “he” or “she” for things we would normally use “it” if we did not hold these things dear to ourselves. Example: America is served well by “her” citizens. Or, “she” is my cat, or, “he” is a loyal dog. Notice that we used she for a cat (a non-trustworthy animal) and he for a dog (man’s best friend), unless she is a bitch (a female dog, another interesting choice of words).

In Semitic languages, as far as I know, there are no pronouns for “it.” Things are either male or female, with the highest orders being referred to in the masculine pronouns. However, and this is interesting, and I am speaking more of Islam and Arabic about which I am more familiar than Judaism and Hebrew, things are not as they appear in English. Allah, as a proper name, has no gender. While it appears masculine in language usage, you cannot derive a feminine form from it. The is no “Allahah,” and if you make it “al-Ilaha” then it is not a proper name anymore. An expert in the Arabic language might want to comment on this, whether right or wrong.
Click to expand...

The reason I refer Him to as "Him" is because I consider Him a Him. I learned this from Jesus who referred to the One in Heaven as Father. Not a far stretch actually...
 
Quahom1 said:
Horse puckey. Jesus gave us the Divine message, and Paul presented structure to a structurless system...

Anarchy, is dangerous...especially in religious beliefs...you know that as well as me.
Click to expand...

So, do we only accept the "structure" of Paul, but not the rest of his text?
 
The Lord said:
So, do we only accept the "stucture" of Paul, but not the rest of his text?
Click to expand...

Who's "we", Batman? I have no problem with Paul...
 
Quahom1 said:
The reason I refer Him to as "Him" is because I consider Him a Him. I learned this from Jesus who referred to the One in Heaven as Father. Not a far stretch actually...
Click to expand...

So are you saying that God the Father has a male organ? Does He work the soil to feed His child? Does He have a wife and enjoy sex? You know, that would expalin His creative powers: He just loves these divine women and could not help Himself but have all kinds of children, of all kinds, His creation.
 
The Lord said:
So are you saying that God the Father has a male organ? Does He work the soil to feed His child? Does He have a wife and enjoy sex? You know, that would expalin His creative powers: He just loves these divine women and could not help Himself but have all kinds of children, of all kinds, His creation.
Click to expand...

lol, God can do/have/act, as God wishes, and it is not mine to question. But that isn't the Judeac/Christian God, that I have grown to know. He apparently is "above" all the carnal stuff, man has to deal with. Just like Paul tried to rise above such issues...not saying he succeeded, just that he tried, because he saw somthing better.

Reverting to base animalism to try to belittle one into accepting your concept of God is, frankly, beneath you. (certainly is beneath me)...:rolleyes:

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
lol, God can do/have/act, as God wishes, and it is not mine to question. But that isn't the Judeac/Christian God, that I have grown to know. He apparently is "above" all the carnal stuff, man has to deal with. Just like Paul tried to rise above such issues...not saying he succeeded, just that he tried, because he saw somthing better.

Reverting to base animalism to try to belittle one into accepting your concept of God is, frankly, beneath you. (certainly is beneath me)...:rolleyes:

v/r

Q
Click to expand...

What is my concept of God? I have not even mentioned what is my belief. You are saying that God is male, in our human sense of male and female. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Did you see His male organ? Do we know of a wife for God? Do you have an x-ray that shows that He has male anatomy? Of course not. Absent that, and by definition, God is neither male nor female. He is just God, period.
 
Quahom1 said:
lol, God can do/have/act, as God wishes, and it is not mine to question. But that isn't the Judeac/Christian God, that I have grown to know. He apparently is "above" all the carnal stuff, man has to deal with. Just like Paul tried to rise above such issues...not saying he succeeded, just that he tried, because he saw somthing better.

Reverting to base animalism to try to belittle one into accepting your concept of God is, frankly, beneath you. (certainly is beneath me)...:rolleyes:

v/r

Q
Click to expand...

As for your claim that God can do anything, well fine: God has killed himself earlier today. The world now has no God. And guess what? Right before He died he appointed Me ruler over the world. How about that for the power of a God who could do anything? LOL.
 
Scarlet Pimpernel said:
Knowing who the father is is only a problem if the woman (and therefore her children) is reliant upon her husband for financial support.
Click to expand...

Not true. Money and support are only a secondary factor, and children are not only “her children” but rather “their children,” both the mother and the father. The society needs to know both parents in order to avoid the marriage and incest of siblings. While society can almost always ascertain the mother by the fact of her giving birth (unless she gave birth in hiding), the society cannot ascertain the father unless the female is in a monogamous relationship.
 
Ok, haven't read all of this and judging by date on last message this is dead anyway- but I always thought God was supposed to be genderless (neither male, female or anything inbetween). My understanding is God's called He, Father, Him etc because the 3 monotheistic religions all come from patrearchal cultures were men are the ones usualy in power/authority- so it follows that God is 'he'?
 
pfw said:
Ok, haven't read all of this and judging by date on last message this is dead anyway- but I always thought God was supposed to be genderless (neither male, female or anything inbetween). My understanding is God's called He, Father, Him etc because the 3 monotheistic religions all come from patrearchal cultures were men are the ones usualy in power/authority- so it follows that God is 'he'?
Click to expand...

In my Yussef Ali translation of the Quaran, God is refered to by the pronoun we.
 
Abubakar said:
In my Yussef Ali translation of the Quaran, God is refered to by the pronoun we.
Click to expand...

I don't realy know much about Islam, only what I've picked up from some Muslim friends at work. They tend to refer to God in masculin terms so I went and assumed... But the 'WE' would still, in many ways, back up my point of a genderless God as there is only 1 God in Islam so God refering to itself (?) or being refered to as 'We' is deliberatly avoiding a gender specific pronoun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top