If "God" were female in the eyes of the majority of the world, do you think we would have fewer wars?

Question

If so, why so? And if not, why not?

Answer 1

If God were female, then God would be Pagan, and Pagans are more peaceful, so yes!
If God were female then God would not suffer the effects of testosterone so much! , So yes!
LOL!!
Ariel

Answer 2

Look at Norse culture, their greatest warriors, the Valkyries, were female. Having a female God would just ensure that more women took prominent places in government, military, etc. which would in turn probably have created the same types of wars.

As the saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely", and in this case, that creates enough reason to believe that both sexes have equal possibility of becoming corrupt and then abusing their power, which then causes rebellion and inevitably war.

Look at the Queen of England dubbed "Bloody Mary" in history, she was a female and it actually caused more blood shed than her male counter parts.

To conclude, I believe that evil can manifest itself in any gender role, it does not need a male or female to produce the effect of hatred. Hatred is a social construct, which can only be changed if the society decides it does not want it to exist; which is why hatred still exists (some people want something to hate and blame for their problems).

Answer 3

I can honestly say that if women had been in charge, the cold war wouldn't have stayed cold very long, as it would have gotten hot, and in the unlikely event that it DID stay a cold war, we would still be in it right now. There is a lot of truth to the comment that women hold grudges far longer than men, at least in many that I've seen. And even then, if it did end, we wouldn't be allies with Russia today either, since I've never met a single woman who has become friends with someone they fought with, which means we would probably end up disbanding from any country we fought with in the past. That means there would probably be about 3 countries we would be aligned with.

Answer 4

I actually think that there would be more wars. Not because of any possible feminine flaws, but because in nature, there is this added agressivity in males applied to the defeat of a contender for the favors of the female. So I don't know what kind of sacred commandments would give birth to what kind of religion if there was to produce a female God.
Now... Maybe I'm wrong about this too.
Aggressivity goes hand in hand with superstition doesn't it?

Answer 5

No. I see absolutely no reason why that would have changed the history of war. The same old problems that lead to war (wanting more land, cultural differences, resource competition, etc.) would still be there.

We've seen enough wars throughout history from cultures with female deities. We've also seen wars fought when countries had female leaders (Queen Victoria, Catherine the Great, etc.), so this idea of "if women ruled, there wouldn't be war" is bogus as well.

Are there people who really think war and violence is a male deity issue? Yeah right, try telling that to the Hindu goddess Kali.

Answer 6

This is a difficult question. While I understand what you mean, unfortunately I don't believe there would be less. Unfortunately it is the interpretation of the human mind, not the words and actions of the Gods that lead to these wars. I believe that no matter what sex the God/Goddess appeared in the humans who wished to could bend and twist his or her words and intentions to suit their evil intentions. I would hate to see someone twisting the words and deeds of any of the Goddesses and Gods I worship and therefore am happy in some ways that more people do not believe what I do. Humans can twist anything, no matter how innocent or beautiful to suit their sick evil purposes. Just look what some people teach their children.
Blessings and love.

Answer 7

I guess that if females had written the Bible with a female god, there would have been less wars as generally females do are not bloodthirsty and warmongers.

It is sad that so many wars have been fought because some male god has decreed that war is a good way to get rid of people who are not like you, who do not think like you and do not behave by your standard.

Answer 8

No. For two reasons. The primary reason is that people, not God, fight wars. They may fight in the name of God, but it is still people who are making the choice to fight.

The second reason is a disagree with the presumption that a female deity would be less warlike. Across cultures there are a wide variety of war goddesses. The idea that women are inherently peaceful is a cultural construction.

Answer 9

Hmmm...now there is a thought!

I have known some of the ancients who were absolutely involved and led not only with Grace, but dignity and the desire to win or die trying!

Perhaps yes we would have fewer wars, but the ones we would have would more then likely be swift and severe. Thus setting a precedence.

Who can say for sure?! lol

just my humble pagan thoughts

Blessings
)o(
Trinity

Answer 10

Wars are the result of moral violations of entire populations. Conflicts among individual people are moral violations at the individual level. Both stem from lack of a rational moral code, not whether people believe in the existence of a male or female god.

The moral code that each individual follows is dictated by the kind of philosophical thoughts he holds to be true. Since nations or societies are the sum of individuals that form them, if everyone subscribes to the same idea and the idea is irrational, the only deterrent against irrational ideas to become violent is a strong defense.

Hitler was elected because a whole society believed that his ideas were good ideas and that under his leadership Germany would return to be a strong, wealthy nation. Instead of looking at the long process of economics which require saving, austerity, productivity and ingenuity, Hitler convinced people that invading Poland and expanding the German Third Reich would bring prosperity to his people faster.

The way we vote and elect who represents us, for example, is a moral choice, which if is irrational will produce conflict and negative results, if it's rational it will produce peace and prosperity. When you have to choose among candidates who are all irrational, what do you do? What is the moral action? That is the real problem of our modern democracies. If we lose the value of teaching logic and rational thinking in schools, we will continue to get leaders that are irrational and that will increase problems in our society instead of solving them.

Conflict always stems from some form of justification of abusing or appropriating what belongs to others. God has no power to change a thing about this animal nature of ours (especially because god is only an idea). But humans are not like all other animals. They do have a conceptual brain which provides them with the possibility of reasoning. They can choose to learn the logical principle that states that "force never justifies the end, no matter how attractive the end is". So, rather than force others to give us what they have produced and turn them into our slaves, we can choose to trade with them.

Only rational thinking is creative and not destructive. Rational thinking is the cause of all discoveries, all inventions, free trade, productivity, wealth, progress, freedom, justice and moral behavior. Without rationality, we are like all other animals, with or without a belief in any kind of supernatural being we will still be animals.

Answer 11

I think our ideals are a reflection of our culture, and certainly our ultimate ideal is God, right? (If not, you would need to indicate that we actually KNOW the gender of God ... and I'd love to see that proof!)

So, if our idea of God is a reflection of our culture (and not the other way around), then presumably it either doesn't effect it or the two (culture and God) effect each other. I believe the latter is the case.

I do believe that any culture that promoted nuturing over conquering would have a different attitude towards war. I also believe any culture that promoted nuturing over conquering would soon be conquered by one that didn't.