neither. Those are earthly standards.
2007-06-07 17:09:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by motex 2
·
6⤊
2⤋
It's true that the Bible reveals God to us in masculine pronouns but with many feminine characteristics. We refer to God as "he" because both the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament use masculine pronouns to refer to him.
Genesis says that God created us in his image, male and female. There's sometihng about God that is both male and female because we are created like god and we have two genders.
I suspect this is an aspect of God we're not meant to understand at this time but I don't know why that would be.
Marriage in the New Testament is said to be a picture of the relationship between Jesus and his church. We are "the bride of Christ". We also know that in heaven we will be "like the angels" which are "neither married nor given in marriage". I believe that in heaven we will experience the actuality of the relationship of which marriage is only a symbol.
Somehow gender fits into this but I'm not sure how yet. I don't think our gender will be relevant in heaven, just as God is both male and female but it doesn't diminish him to talk about him using masculine pronouns.
Interesting question.
2007-06-07 17:20:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Craig R 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Humans are male or female. God is God. He is not bound by human limits or genders. Besides... if God was male, he would need a female counterpart. That's two Gods. So how can an Abrahamic God be male or female. (I'm notsaying this wouldn't work in polytheist religions).
God has no gender becuase he is not bound by human imperfections.
2007-06-07 17:51:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Michael M 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Females can bring forth life. Men have useless nipples, hair falls out, hair grows in useless places... clearly testosterone is required for life but it such a disturbing influence on the body that God required another 'version' just to carry this required hormone. A measure of logic says the Bible was adjusted, and it would have said Women came in the image of God. So God would be closer to Female, as Females are can be closer to God through their increased capacity for empathy as a nurturer. The closer your are to 'good' the closer you are to 'God'.
2007-06-07 17:22:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by tacs1ave 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Aneristic Principle is that of APPARENT ORDER; the Eristic Principle is that of APPARENT DISORDER. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of PURE CHAOS, which is a level deeper that is the level of distinction making. With our concept making apparatus called "mind" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us. The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary.
2007-06-07 17:20:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by hairypotto 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wow... Where do you all get these strange ideas that God is some shapeless nothingness. God is the supreme being of the world that looks like humans (read Genesis... He created man in His image). God is also clearly a male. Just read the scriptures.
Matt. 6:9 - After this manner therefore pray ye: Our FATHER which art in heaven
Matt. 6:14 - For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly FATHER will also forgive you
Christ himself said so. There's no room for arguement. If you believe in the Bible you believe that God is a male.
2007-06-07 17:18:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by Trump 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
God presents himself in the masculine sense and Jesus is a man. I really thing the final result is that God technically is neigther male or female.. Sex only has to do with us and this life here and now..
2007-06-07 17:22:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Bible always uses the Masculine ending for God. However, God created "female and male" after he already existed. Which means he's neither. But his incarnation on Earth (Jesus) was male.
2007-06-07 17:11:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
As a Norse heathen, we have any number of each. ;-)
As to whether that can be taken *literally* . . . well, I think that stories are what WE tell. But the truths those stories express are, well, truths.
I believe that the power of FreyR, immanent in the world, is best described through intensely male metaphors, just as Freyja's is approached through female ones. Beyond that . . . ain't sayin' :-)
2007-06-07 17:19:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by Boar's Heart 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you read the OT in Hebrew, you notice that G-d is sometimes referred to as female, and sometimes as male. It is because G-d has male and female qualities.
2007-06-07 18:52:01
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Definitely not female. Man is the image of God and woman (nurturing aspects) is the image of Man
2007-06-07 17:13:22
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋