Why is the Abrahamic God male? Couldn't he have been female instead?

Why is the Abrahamic God male? Couldn't he have been female instead?

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Mike Stoklasa's Worst Fan Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    he's beyond gender, he's an enby

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Jesus is clearly male

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Jesus was assigned male at birth but his body houses a genderless entity.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Une Chienne Andalou

      >Why is the Abrahamic God male?
      Because the Abrahamic God was lifted from the Canaanite pantheon. “El” was a male just like Zeus, Jupiter, Odin or Vishnu. All of these “gods” are ultimately a form of sky god (as opposed to an earth goddess). Language also plays a role in this because even when these cultures came to a more sophisticated understanding of God they were limited by crude languages which limited how they could talk about God and forced them to describe him as either male or female as opposed to the more accurate neutral.

      Unironically this. Sex belongs properly to material creatures, and gender is a sociopsychological mental construct based on sex. Neither of these things apply to God.

      >Why is the Abrahamic God male?
      where is this ever stated in any of the major Abrahamic faiths? is it because "he" is used when referring to God? because if so that's just a construct of language like the royal we, you can't exactly use "it" to refer to your creator

      >you can't exactly use "it" to refer to your creator
      Why not? The Upanishads do it on several occasions and it’s not a problem at all. If you feel it is insulting then that’s your own hangups you need to work through
      Ultimately anthropomorphic personal descriptions of God are crude and all fall short. They will always be inferior to the truth recognized by the philosophers like Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, Shankara, Nagarjuna, etc. The Ayn Soph of the israeli Kabbalists, The Brahman of the Upanishads, The One of platonic philosophy, Olodumare of Yoruba religion, all of these are far better descriptions of the true God. Which is one without a second, undivided, immutable, and absolute, not just some superman in the sky with its own personality and desires, essentially just another limited being.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is the Abrahamic God male?
    where is this ever stated in any of the major Abrahamic faiths? is it because "he" is used when referring to God? because if so that's just a construct of language like the royal we, you can't exactly use "it" to refer to your creator

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      he's beyond gender, he's an enby

      Most Christians/Jews today forget that the original conception of YHVH in the Old Testament was that the God had a literal body.
      Exodus 33:21-33
      >21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
      https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90113/3/Stiebert%20Johanna%20The%20Body%20and%20Voice%20of%20God%20in%20the%20Hebrew%20Bible.pdf

      The idea of YHVH/the Abrahamic God as a noncorporeal being didn't arise until much later. The original israelites saw him as a male because they envisioned him as having a male body.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The original israelites saw him as a male because they envisioned him as having a male body.
        The pdf you linked clearly says it's much more nuanced than that though. Even the verses you posted can easily be interpreted otherwise. How exactly do you think this event could have been described to bronze/iron age people without seriously confusing them?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That doesn't mean he isn't described as having a tangible, corporeal body. You can argue that this was probably metaphorical to some extent, but that isn't directly reflected in the text itself.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–c. 253) was an early Christian theologian, scholar, and ascetic who was involved in a controversy over his teachings on the body of God. In 400, Theophilus convened a council in Alexandria that condemned Origen and his followers as heretics for teaching that God was incorporeal, which they believed contradicted the orthodox position that God had a physical body similar to a human. Theophilus called Origen the "hydra of all heresies" and convinced Pope Anastasius I to sign the council's letter.
          Early Christians also held the position that the God of the Bible was described as having a tangible body. That was one of the main Origenist crises.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            then whoever wrote that text is contradicting scripture
            >John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
            >Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
            The claim is incoherent, just like you are in your shallow assertions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then explain why Pope Anastasius himself believed you were wrong. Surely the Pope would've studied Christian theology throughout the vast majority of his life, no?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the popes aren't christian

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's a pretty radical take. Regardless, the Old Testament does explicit state that God has a corporeal form which is why so many early Christians condemned Origen for contradicting that. Whether or not you want to believe that's purely metaphorical and early Christians/Jews were simply too ignorant to appreciate that is your prerogative - but pretending that the Bible doesn't (actually) describe that is just lazy arguing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it doesn't. Like I said, the claim in contradictory to the entire scripture. Just because it's majority opinion doesn't make it true. You should read the Bible itself sometime instead of making up what it says.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Bible contradicts itself on that point (and many others). Early Christians weren't wrong necessarily for putting more weight in the corporeal descriptions of God than anything else. They're making the same value judgement you are that "only these descriptions of YHVH are correct and the others are metaphorical." In the end, it's anyone's guess who (if anyone) is more right.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            There is no contradiction. You have an agenda to subvert reality, and to desperately achieve this agenda you subvert meaning.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you implying that early Christians/Jews were operating out of some kind of sinister agenda when they believed in the literal interpretation of Exodus?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The literal interpretation of Exodus would produce the exact opposite conclusion than what you present. So I know that you are operating sinisterly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it wouldn't. You're arguing out of bad faith and pretending that your interpretation of the Bible is necessarily much more valid than the original Christians themselves because...why, exactly? Your view is more accepted in mainstream Christianity today?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Your sentences are so disjointed that I can't pick out what exactly you're trying to say. Read Exodus, not random scriptures cited and used in other peoples writing who try to subvert the text.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you had trouble reading the post you're replying to, I'd urge you to put the joint down. Or, more likely, you're just pretending you don't understand my point because acknowledging it might be a little uncomfortable.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >God is a Spirit
            God is Spirit, or THE Spirit (Spiritus est Deus)
            Interpreting it as "God is a spirit" is like taking "the Word was God" (Deus erat Verbum) as "God is a word"
            Furthermore Spirit and Breath are synonymous.

            >Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
            God is "invisible" because whoever looks upon his face will die. Despite this several people have been granted the privilege of looking upon his glory.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >God is "invisible" because whoever looks upon his face will die.
            what is it with christians and butchering the meaning of words? the bible also says God is immortal but you lot will say that doesn't mean he can't die lmao

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the bible also says God is immortal
            I don't think I remember any such verse, actually.
            >but you lot will say that doesn't mean he can't die lmao
            God came in the flesh, died and rose again on the third day.

            >what is it with christians and butchering the meaning of words
            Christianity is a mystery religion, literalist interpretations are doomed from the start.
            It's beyond doubt that people have seen God, and not just in the flesh, so God clearly isn't invisible in the sense you imagine.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't think I remember any such verse, actually.
            >It's beyond doubt that people have seen God, and not just in the flesh,
            "who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man hath seen nor can see, to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen." - 1 Timothy 6:16
            >Christianity is a mystery religion
            code word for illogical, anything you can't explain is a mystery but somehow you still have the audacity to claim it's true

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >anything you can't explain is a mystery but somehow you still have the audacity to claim it's true
            Yeah, that's Christianity in a nutshell.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mystery religion is the religion that isn't Christianity. So you contradict yourself again.
            >Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          not him but explain genesis 3:8 "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden."
          hes walking with his physical body

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            many translations state they've heard the voice of the Lord and anyways https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_6963.htm even the walking part seems suspect considering Deuteronomy 23:14 usage of the word

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            if it only meants to "come" as a force of god or whatever that would imply that god is not always at every part of his creation like omnipresence, a lot of christian sects believe in panantheism and this goes against that, its also true that a lot of christian traditions say that hell is the absence of god which would kinda imply that god's creation is not part of god and that its seperate, can this count as true omnipresence?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I know this isn't the majority opinion but I hold onto the idea of omnipresence as being the ability of God to influence every part of his creation (basically a consequence of omniscience and omnipotence) to such a degree that he is basically operating as if he is there at least in spirit. Mainly because I don't believe he needs to exist in created things like spacetime (since they aren't eternal) but also he is "above" everything and his majesty demands that he isn't present in shameful parts of creation. Only God knows best obviously so I don't want to speak with absolute certainty here

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most Christians/Jews today just ignore the fact that YHVH was described as having a physical body because it doesn't jive with our more modern mainstream conceptions of God as incorporeal. The actual scripture does explicitly state that he does in fact have a tangible body though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            idk, you seem to be pushing it pretty hard, and you seem pretty modern.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's because unlike most Christians/Jews, I've actually read the Bible cover to cover.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            My sources say otherwise. As you wouldn't be saying such blatantly wrong things, and that's not including the possibility that you're being dishonest.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nothing I've said in this thread has been refuted. You can go back and check for yourself. Your "counterarguments" have all essentially boiled down to "nuh uh" or "they're just taking obvious metaphors too literally but not me when I do the same thing but vice-versa"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you insert this idea into scripture, you get something contradictory which is what you're trying to create. If you let the scripture speak for itself, it tells you what it is. I've read it front to back, and the truth is the opposite of what you are asserting.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See

            not him but explain genesis 3:8 "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden."
            hes walking with his physical body

            https://i.imgur.com/mLV71zT.jpeg

            [...]
            Most Christians/Jews today forget that the original conception of YHVH in the Old Testament was that the God had a literal body.
            Exodus 33:21-33
            >21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
            https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90113/3/Stiebert%20Johanna%20The%20Body%20and%20Voice%20of%20God%20in%20the%20Hebrew%20Bible.pdf

            The idea of YHVH/the Abrahamic God as a noncorporeal being didn't arise until much later. The original israelites saw him as a male because they envisioned him as having a male body.

            If you're pretending I haven't justified my position with scripture clearly you didn't actually look back at the thread. I also don't believe you've actually read the Bible because, if you did, my position wouldn't come as a surprise to you in the first place.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            im the guy youre replying to and youre right especially since christians today say god came as a man (jesus) meaning god can have a material body if he wanted to, whether it be an actual body that his wholeness resides in or a puppet he controls inside his creation

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      literally no, moronic.
      the Hebrews used "he" and "lord"... not something "neutral".
      what is more;
      Christ is God and God has always existed, therefore, God is male.
      and before writing a feminist text, see that he said that he is "masculine" in the literal sense of the word. I didn't say he has flawed attributes like male human beings.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Hebrews used "he" and "lord"... not something "neutral"
        yes because it's their fricking language
        >God is male.
        God is not a man, nor does he participate in sexual reproduction like animals.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Christ is God.
          and Christ were not "sexless."
          and God always had his body

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Christ is God.
            no but even if we take your delusions he took on human nature it wasn't eternal

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >"it"
      in what language? yours? We don't see this in Greek, Latin (or Latin languages), Aramaic-Syriac, etc.
      generally it has a connotation of something, and calling God "something" is almost like belittling him. he is not something, he is the creator.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hebrew is a gendered language with no neutral iirc and yes that's exactly the point there's no other way to refer to God

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Germanic languages with three genders are truly superior.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no, two genders protect the nation from troons. they literally have to modify it https://www.colorado.edu/today/2018/12/12/student-constructs-gender-inclusive-hebrew-language-rules to fit their insanity

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >troons
            rent free

          • 3 weeks ago
            Cult of Passion

            >rent
            Own.

            In perpetuity.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why is OP a homosexual? Couldn't he have been straight instead?

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I met God she was black

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      oh my science!

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Women can’t run things

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not reading this thread but God, THE FATHER is male as he sculpted Adam in his image.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    theres no reason he couldnt be female, although he isnt as we know from scripture
    but there is some reasons for why he would choose to be male other than just being that way from the beginning
    first of all, if he wants to portray himself as a powerful god that can do war, being a woman could soften his followers view of that, and its quite clear in the bible that god cares about being perceived as mighty
    second, the bible repeatadely tries to stay away from paganism, and being portrayed as a man gives the perception that god is "neutral" in his powers or desires if that makes sense, while a female god would imply being a god of fertility or something specific

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The masculine is the spiritual, creating force whilst the feminine is the material, receiving force. The earth and nature are the feminine side of the spiritual/god/masculine world. This is, at least, how such conceptions come about in man’s psyche, from a israeli or Christian dogmatic point of (always reasoned haphazardly after the initial conception) there’s a number of answers.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Male implies God possesses a sex, which is a purely human and animal attribute. God is simply referred to in the masculine because He has revealed this to us in Scripture. While God is sometimes referred to in the feminine analogically (e.g., God is like a mother, a hen gathering her chicks, etc.), ultimately God instructs us to call Him, He. God also became incarnate as the man, Jesus Christ, which is further demonstration of this partiality.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      See

      https://i.imgur.com/mLV71zT.jpeg

      [...]
      Most Christians/Jews today forget that the original conception of YHVH in the Old Testament was that the God had a literal body.
      Exodus 33:21-33
      >21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”
      https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/90113/3/Stiebert%20Johanna%20The%20Body%20and%20Voice%20of%20God%20in%20the%20Hebrew%20Bible.pdf

      The idea of YHVH/the Abrahamic God as a noncorporeal being didn't arise until much later. The original israelites saw him as a male because they envisioned him as having a male body.

      Luke 24:39
      Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.'

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Couldn't he have been female instead?
    Makes sense. Why worship a dude? Sounds kind of gay.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Makes sense.
      the only reason you say that is because you are an edgy atheist with a mind consumed by porn

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Females arent a universal symbol of authority. Females have always been and always will be in mans shadow. He wouldnt be a God if he was female she would be a Goddess which isnt greater than man thats still in man kinds shadow as a lesser being. God is all mighty and true so it would not make sense.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *