Christians: if you didn't have the bible, is there anything that would make you think that your God is male?

Question

What, if anything, BESIDES THE BIBLE, would lead you to refer to your deity as "He?" Would you consider referring to your deity as "It" or "She?"

Answer 1

There is nothing in christian scripture that suggets anything other than that god is gender free. Not a hermaphrodite. Just above all physical attributes. It is only by tradition derived from judaism that the male gender is assigned in references to "him" etc. The idea that god is male is a product of jewish misogyny. Christ spoke of god as unknowable and pre-existing. The implication is a purely spiritual entity. Hebrews view god as a Great Father in The Sky. Very primitive.

Answer 2

As a Christian that is a great question and I do not know the answer to that since many books over the years would be written another way including a sacred text book. And perhaps if you lived in a parallel universe where God is represented as female would ask the question; Christians if you didn't have the bible, is there anything that would make you think that your god is female?

If that were the case and God had the same attributes as the present one you would of course being a male there (since ou are female in this one universe) pose the same question from a male perspective.

In our universe God is Spirit. So really in all honesty, you could call God a she and He would not be offended by it. Yet the Biblical writers identified the Spirit as He. And He identifed himself as He. But just because He said that of himself and He is Sprit where there is no male or female. Maybe you can call Him a She..

In the history before the Bible. I am certain in ancient cultures a god was a she. And it would make sense. And it would not deminish the importance of the Bible.

To get a better answer for myself and I hope for you too I did a goodl search with "Jewish Tradition" and "is God is male" and got the site below that discusses this issue:

I once read an Orthodox Jewish rabbi’s explanation that the Bible’s use of male pronouns for God is simply “male default” language — that of course God isn’t male in a physical sense, or isn’t exclusively “male” in attributes…that any way we attempt to image or describe God will be woefully inadequate and anthropomorphic. I have to say, the rabbi makes a much more thoughtful and compelling argument than the “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” mentalitiy of some of the respondents here.

Comment by LutheranChik — 6/22/2005 @ 5:43 pm

In the end what is important is that you acknowledge God as the authority in your life. Just as you would honor your father and mother as you did when you were a child.

Answer 3

The Bible's position is clear. Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate from Jesus but He is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a humble servant of God. That is why the Bible plainly says that "the head of the Christ is God" in the same way that "the head of every man is the Christ." (1 Corinthians 11:3) And this is why Jesus himself said: "The Father is greater than I."—John 14:28, RS, Catholic edition. The fact is that Jesus is not God and never claimed to be. This is being recognized by an increasing number of scholars. As the Rylands Bulletin states: "The fact has to be faced that New Testament research over, say, the last thirty or forty years has been leading an increasing number of reputable New Testament scholars to the conclusion that Jesus . . . certainly never believed himself to be God." The Bulletin also says of first-century Christians: "When, therefore, they assigned [Jesus] such honorific titles as Christ, Son of man, Son of God and Lord, these were ways of saying not that he was God, but that he did God's work." Thus, even some religious scholars admit that the idea of Jesus' being God opposes the entire testimony of the Bible. There, God is always the superior, and Jesus is the subordinate servant.

Answer 4

Even with the Bible, which at one point refers to God as a "brooding hen," there is no reason to characterize God as male. True, the second person of the Trinity became united with a male human being. That cannot be denied if one accepts the Incarnation, and given the cultural conditions of the day, no one would have paid attention if God had visited the earth as a female back then. But Genesis says: "God made humankind in God's image; male and female, God made them." (If that sounds a little strange, it's because I took the usual pronouns out and replaced them with the nouns they signify.) Both male and female carry that image of God, so God is both and is greater than both. It's only the acquired cultural baggage, expressed by translators using masculine forms over the centuries, that the Bible appears to many to refer to the Godhead as male.

Answer 5

I am a christian and I never believed that God was male in the first place.

John 4:24 - God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.

As for the gender of the language, well, God is a person, therefore, "it" does not apply.

God is compared to a woman giving birth at Isaiah 42:14 - I have kept quiet for a long time. I continued silent. I kept exercising self-control. Like a woman giving birth I am going to groan, pant, and gasp at the same time.

The gender of the language is your problem; mailman, mankind, layman...

If I did not have the bible I would still believe God has no gender... I hope this helps... Journey Well...

Answer 6

God is NOT a male in the sense of anything physical. After all, He has told us that He is a SPIRIT and not confined to a body.

The common attributes ascribed to man are those which God gave to him. In the same way that He made females with distinct honorable attributes.

But when He sent His Son into the world, He was in the physical form of a male.....born of a woman.

Answer 7

Actually, God never used male pronouns in reference to self, you will note all accounts of Jesus (and the rest of the bible) were written by Jews, ex-jews, or like-minded converts of regional groups, which tended to use father, since that is how Jews typically thought wealth was passed on (as well as other patriarchal societies).

In the old testament God is referred to by gender, although when God speaks to them directly, God does not use gender. God was called God, IAM,etc.

I do believe that God is without Gender, having no bible would merely improve that thought; and people would seek God's guidance more fervently.

By realizing their book was written by man inspired by God, they would seek the inbuilt spiritual insight that would allow them to know that God is without Gender and that "man" was the one who had placed that title upon their deity.

P.S> I Seriously can't believe I used that word so many times in a single entry.

Answer 8

Interesting question. God does not have a gender, so technically, you could call him "it," but I find that disrespectful, because God is a person (not to be confused with human), and in this language, refering to someone as "it" devalues them.

Outside of the Bible, what indications are there that God has more in common with the male gender than female gender?

In most natural societies and relationships, the man is the looked upon and acts as leader, and the head of the household. If one can bypass the thought than men and women are really equal, you see that women usually want a man they can look up to, and from experience, I know men do not want a woman who requires me to look up to them. So the god who created and runs the universe would logically most likely have a closer resemblance to men than women.

If this god created all things, including people, then wouldn't it need a procreative function, and therefore, wouldn't there have to be a goddess?

Fair question. Many religions and cults include this in thier theology. First of all, lets look at procreation. When men and women procreate, they produce other men and women, and no other species produces offspring that are not virtually identical to it, so if a god and goddess were to procreate, we would most likely see little gods and goddesses as a product, not humans.
Even if this procreation resulted in souls to occupy human bodies (as Mormons believe), then later they depart to become gods, this creates a logical problem in that it would be indicative of a finite point in time past in which the god and goddess were produced. Most likely through procreation. So when did THIER parents procreate them?

The "static" God that does not change, end or begin, and exsists outside of the space-time continium would solve that logical question of origins.

This "static," eternal God, if not PROcreating would have to, by himself, CREATE the space time continium with a finite beginning, logically, since there is more evidence AGAINST the physical universe being eternal than for it being eternal.

And if this god created the universe, he is most likely greater than his creation, as we are greater than any of our creations. After all, no man has ever created another man by creation, only by PROcreation.

Couldn't the eternal god be a goddess?

Again, fair question. But not logical. You are including a gender in something that wouldn't need or use gender.
Look at societies. Men are usually the builders, construction workers, bricklayers, engineers, etc. Some women are, but the majority are men, and that is undeniable. It's just the way our natures are.

So, God is logically gender neutral, since a procreation would result in a need for a finite beginning, and gender would be obsolete for a creator god. The most powerful creature on the planet is a human, and the more creative of the two versions of humans are men (by creative, I do not mean in an abstract way refering to art, nor intellectually, but rather as far as building things goes. ie. buildings, houses, dams, companies, governments, empires, etc.).

Do humans not have the most control of thier enviornment and destiny out of all the other creatures? Somewhat "godlike," compared to other creatures, despite thier vast array, power, and splendor, aren't we?
So wouldn't the most godlike of all the creatures be indicative of what thier God must be like?

Now one problem most Christians would have with your question is your desire to disinclude the Bible as a source of evidence. If I did not have the Bible, (which I did not use here) I would be a LONG way away from being able to formulate my own argument. Personally, it annoys me when people talk of angels, demons, afterlives, and God, without including the Bible, which is the source of those nouns! If you're going to take an idea and run with it, why not go back to the place you got the idea? Its exactly like making up whatever you want about the Civil War, because you like the concept, but never studying any historical accounts from the Civil War. Anyway, that is a side rant, and not really the answer to your question.

An addition to this, God does refer to himself as He exclusively, and if you people want to ignore what the Bible says, don't play games and say you're really a Christian. Just make up your own stuff and don't act so self-rightous about being the "real" Christians because you were able to augment the Scriptures to suit your own whims and political correctness. The Bible is what it is. Take it or leave it.

Answer 9

I was never taught about God or Jesus or anything spiritual. I had no parents or any caring adult/s in my life. No direction. When I began my journey, seeking God or whomever, I was looking for the Father I never had. For me, God could never be a she - my mom was worse than my dad. Besides, Wisdom is female. She is the Mother I never had. Prov 1:20 - 33

Answer 10

God chose to be revealed in this form in order for man to more easily grasp who God is.. while God makes allowances in order to help mankind understand him, it is important to not try to “force God into a box,” so to speak, by placing limitations on him that are not appropriate to the nature of who he is.

yes, God is referred to with masculine titles, nouns, and pronouns - but God isn't a man, He is a spirit, and he chose a masculine form in order to reveal himself to mankind