God (boy? girl? both? neither?)

[Rsnbl Faith]

Blayd iskander

i think i can help you. god is an immortal omnipotent being and has no need for gender, therefore "he" is neither male or female, he is just god. he is the first and last of all things.

I think i can take that a step foward, He is a masculent word, and would u not agree God is masculent(sry for poor spelling) =P the He is to show he is Masculent.=P  

[Priestley]

Kain1334

Blayd iskander

i think i can help you. god is an immortal omnipotent being and has no need for gender, therefore "he" is neither male or female, he is just god. he is the first and last of all things.

I think i can take that a step foward, He is a masculent word, and would u not agree God is masculent(sry for poor spelling) =P the He is to show he is Masculent.=P

'Masculine' is an adjective word to describe things commonly associated with males. It doesn't necessarily follow that something with a masculine characteristic is male. For example, a car's engine sounds like a roar. This characteristic is commonly associated with male animals that roar. The car itself is not male.  

[Jessy_4 26 2008]

I sort of said both for reasons that should've been used for neither. I think that God is limitless and the Western definitions of gender are filled with limitations (man's work, women's work, etc.). He created humanity in His image, male and female he created them. I personally believe it included gender at the end only to clear things up, the emphasis was on the only difference from Him, gender being that difference.

I only call God a He because He is referred to in the Bible as a He and our Holy Father. Although without calling Him, He, I'm not sure what I would call Him besides the different variations of God.  

[Ixor Firebadger]

Priestley

'Masculine' is an adjective word to describe things commonly associated with males. It doesn't necessarily follow that something with a masculine characteristic is male.

I am a great example of this. xd rofl  

[freelance lover]

Priestley

freelance lover

I am very firm in my belief that God is neither male nor female, but it also both male and female at the same time..

That is, God is not bound by the world we live in, s/he transcends everything. To but a gender to God is to, in effect, put God in a box. I also don't think it's wrong to call God she.

Quantium gender? God is both until you look in the box and find out which? xd

Also, I've pointed out that definitions do not necessarily place limitations on whatever object one is defining. It is more accurate to create a definition of what something is than to create a definition from everything it is not.

freelance lover

Alas, English lacks a good gender-nuetral pronoun.

I know. 'It' sucks but is accurate. There's little reason why it shouldn't be used.

The reason I explained God's gender as I did is because, to me, it shows that God does not live by our rules. He is beyond our understanding, so describing him as something that is logically impossible kind of gives testemony to his bg, crazy awesomeness that we can never fully understand.

And I'm not against calling God "he", you need some definition of else things just get confusing. The problem is, in cases like this where the word is more symbolic than it is literal, some people are going to take it literally, which leads to misinterpretaion.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Priestley

Fushigi na Butterfly

Like Ixor said, I don't like the reasons for why you feel God is both. Those are all Western concepts of male and female gender.

If anyone's ever read both Wild at Heart and Captivating (the first by John Eldridge, the second by him and his wife), they'll understand that God is neither male nor female. We're based off of Him, formed in His image, but we aren't God ourselves. There is more to God than just "Father" or, as it may be, "Mother." God has all the characteristics of "male" and "female," and He kindly divided some of them up between men and women. God is fierce and consuming, God is proud, God is protective, God is a fighter, God is a pursuer, God is Father and Son and Husband. But God is also caring, also understanding, also emotional, also jealous, also beautiful, and wanting to be pursued. Sure, any of these traits can cross the lines and can be seen in both men and women, and don't necessarily mean anything when they show up in the "non-normative" gender. But men and women certainly do have certain characteristics that are generally specific to their own "gender." God embodies all of them, and we can see how we are each formed in His image but looking at the Person God is, and then looking at the individuals we are.

It's important to note that, while gender identity can be said to affect one's personality and its associated traits, character traits are not gender-specific, neither are feelings or emotions. Angels are without gender. Those in heaven will be without gender like the angels, Jesus said. With all this in mind, is it more accurate to say that God is genderless or both genders?

This is true. It's almost as if every single character trait was bundled up inside Him, and He allocated them to men and women based on His purposes for each.  

[Xandris]

Well, if God made man in his image, and God is then obviously humanoid, why couldn't he look male? Jesus had no apparent problem being male on earth, and look at some of the issues that come up today when a person feels ill-at-ease with their gender. After all, he was human too and went through the same trials as any other human. I don't know if Jesus would have been as effective if he had been effeminate. I take very little of the Bible literally, but it doesn't feel right to me that God wouldn't be a 'he' persona, despite what we associate with modern 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Xandris

Well, if God made man in his image, and God is then obviously humanoid, why couldn't he look male? Jesus had no apparent problem being male on earth, and look at some of the issues that come up today when a person feels ill-at-ease with their gender. After all, he was human too and went through the same trials as any other human. I don't know if Jesus would have been as effective if he had been effeminate. I take very little of the Bible literally, but it doesn't feel right to me that God wouldn't be a 'he' persona, despite what we associate with modern 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits.

Jesus would have been even more gender-confused then, if His Father really was neither gender. xd  

[Xandris]

Fushigi na Butterfly

Xandris

Well, if God made man in his image, and God is then obviously humanoid, why couldn't he look male? Jesus had no apparent problem being male on earth, and look at some of the issues that come up today when a person feels ill-at-ease with their gender. After all, he was human too and went through the same trials as any other human. I don't know if Jesus would have been as effective if he had been effeminate. I take very little of the Bible literally, but it doesn't feel right to me that God wouldn't be a 'he' persona, despite what we associate with modern 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits.

Jesus would have been even more gender-confused then, if His Father really was neither gender. xd

Indeed so. xd  

[Galad Aglaron]

Okay, I have it. According to Jewish dogma, there are two aspects to God: the Name and the Presence. That is, YHWH and Shekinah. YHWH is traditionally considered male, and Shekinah is traditionally considered female. 3nodding  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Wow. eek How very Yin and Yang of Him.  

[Galad Aglaron]

Her. It. Them?  

[Priestley]

Xandris

Well, if God made man in his image, and God is then obviously humanoid, why couldn't he look male?

Except that God is spirit, not a physical being that is human-shaped. Jesus was spirit before he was placed in Mary's womb. Beings in Heaven are neither male nor female in gender. Why would they need to be?

Xandris

Jesus had no apparent problem being male on earth, and look at some of the issues that come up today when a person feels ill-at-ease with their gender. After all, he was human too and went through the same trials as any other human. I don't know if Jesus would have been as effective if he had been effeminate. I take very little of the Bible literally, but it doesn't feel right to me that God wouldn't be a 'he' persona, despite what we associate with modern 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits.

Well, persona is different from gender. Persona deals with character traits. God seems to display many 'male' character traits. Naturally, this makes us identify with a 'male' persona. The conclusion is made that God must be male gendered because He shows these characteristics. However, God has not only displayed 'male' character traits in the past but also 'female' character traits. Does this mean he is also female? Again, the choice comes down to these genders: male and female, or neither.  

[Xandris]

Priestley

Well, persona is different from gender. Persona deals with character traits. God seems to display many 'male' character traits. Naturally, this makes us identify with a 'male' persona. The conclusion is made that God must be male gendered because He shows these characteristics. However, God has not only displayed 'male' character traits in the past but also 'female' character traits. Does this mean he is also female? Again, the choice comes down to these genders: male and female, or neither.

Gender is also different than sex. Gender is associating yourself more as male or female. Although I think we need to stop trying to classify God as male or female given today's 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits. Only a few hundred years ago, a man wasn't a man unless he wore heels, makeup and a powdered wig. Not long before that, he wasn't a man unless he'd gone through some rite that involved the slaying of a great beast, or even another man. The man in the wig was expected to be 'effeminate' by today's standards, in order to woo a woman. The man with the spear was expected to be strong and protect his family and his community. If the definition of 'masculine' and 'feminine' keep changing, which are we supposed to use to define God?  

[Priestley]

Xandris

Priestley

Well, persona is different from gender. Persona deals with character traits. God seems to display many 'male' character traits. Naturally, this makes us identify with a 'male' persona. The conclusion is made that God must be male gendered because He shows these characteristics. However, God has not only displayed 'male' character traits in the past but also 'female' character traits. Does this mean he is also female? Again, the choice comes down to these genders: male and female, or neither.

Gender is also different than sex. Gender is associating yourself more as male or female. Although I think we need to stop trying to classify God as male or female given today's 'masculine' and 'feminine' traits. Only a few hundred years ago, a man wasn't a man unless he wore heels, makeup and a powdered wig. Not long before that, he wasn't a man unless he'd gone through some rite that involved the slaying of a great beast, or even another man. The man in the wig was expected to be 'effeminate' by today's standards, in order to woo a woman. The man with the spear was expected to be strong and protect his family and his community. If the definition of 'masculine' and 'feminine' keep changing, which are we supposed to use to define God?

Gender is different than sex? Since when?