God (boy? girl? both? neither?)

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

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?

Since always. Sex is your biological anatomy- having a p***s rather than a v****a. Gender is the role your society expects you to play based on those biological characteristics. Physical males are expected to be tough- not to cry, not to show any emotion besides aggression and anger, to be forward, both sexually and in other domains of their lives. Physical females are expected to be submissive, more subtly manipulative, geared towards family and child-rearing. In our culture, anyone who steps out of these lines isn't "normal." In other cultures, a physical male is expected to cry at the drop of a hat and tend to all the domestic things while the women go about gossiping about their husbands and being tough. Gender is arbitrary, though, sex is slightly arbitrary as well, basing it off of what's between our legs rather than anything else. -shrug-  

[Priestley]

Fushigi na Butterfly

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?

Since always. Sex is your biological anatomy- having a p***s rather than a v****a. Gender is the role your society expects you to play based on those biological characteristics. Physical males are expected to be tough- not to cry, not to show any emotion besides aggression and anger, to be forward, both sexually and in other domains of their lives. Physical females are expected to be submissive, more subtly manipulative, geared towards family and child-rearing. In our culture, anyone who steps out of these lines isn't "normal." In other cultures, a physical male is expected to cry at the drop of a hat and tend to all the domestic things while the women go about gossiping about their husbands and being tough. Gender is arbitrary, though, sex is slightly arbitrary as well, basing it off of what's between our legs rather than anything else. -shrug-

I have never really made the distinction. Gender and sex are the same to me. A post-op transexual is still a man, despite his desire to physically be a woman.  

[Xandris]

Priestley

I have never really made the distinction. Gender and sex are the same to me. A post-op transexual is still a man, despite his desire to physically be a woman.

It's okay. Not many people do make the distinction. Unless you've gotten yourself through a bunch of psychology courses. mrgreen

I want to add more, but I'm afraid it'll just be a different wording of what I've already said. confused  

[Priestley]

Xandris

Priestley

I have never really made the distinction. Gender and sex are the same to me. A post-op transexual is still a man, despite his desire to physically be a woman.

It's okay. Not many people do make the distinction. Unless you've gotten yourself through a bunch of psychology courses. mrgreen

I want to add more, but I'm afraid it'll just be a different wording of what I've already said. confused

Don't worry about it. Fushigi further explained it to me. I already knew that there was a distinction mainly in anthropology, sociology and psychology fields. Personally, however, I see no real need for the distinction. To put it in the context of someone who feels like a woman trapped in a man's body, I believe that's no different than, say, me believing that I cannot live up to a particular expectation or standard or perform a particular task. There's talk of gender roles being those which are imposed upon or expected of you within society according to your physical sex but, to me, that is nothing more than a pattern of habit-forming behaviour in that we copy what we see those who look similar to us within a social group doing.  

[Xandris]

Priestley

Don't worry about it. Fushigi further explained it to me. I already knew that there was a distinction mainly in anthropology, sociology and psychology fields. Personally, however, I see no real need for the distinction. To put it in the context of someone who feels like a woman trapped in a man's body, I believe that's no different than, say, me believing that I cannot live up to a particular expectation or standard or perform a particular task. There's talk of gender roles being those which are imposed upon or expected of you within society according to your physical sex but, to me, that is nothing more than a pattern of habit-forming behaviour in that we copy what we see those who look similar to us within a social group doing.

Oh, I just meant in the context of the topic, and obviously if we have ill-defined words, how are we to then define something/someone that's hard to define as is? mrgreen  

[Priestley]

Xandris

Priestley

Don't worry about it. Fushigi further explained it to me. I already knew that there was a distinction mainly in anthropology, sociology and psychology fields. Personally, however, I see no real need for the distinction. To put it in the context of someone who feels like a woman trapped in a man's body, I believe that's no different than, say, me believing that I cannot live up to a particular expectation or standard or perform a particular task. There's talk of gender roles being those which are imposed upon or expected of you within society according to your physical sex but, to me, that is nothing more than a pattern of habit-forming behaviour in that we copy what we see those who look similar to us within a social group doing.

Oh, I just meant in the context of the topic, and obviously if we have ill-defined words, how are we to then define something/someone that's hard to define as is? mrgreen

Heh, not to mention things get confusing when one introduces the possibility of having male reproductive organs yet bodily tissues having XX chromosomes. Fushigi told me about this. eek  

[Galad Aglaron]

Fushigi na Butterfly

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?

Since always. Sex is your biological anatomy- having a p***s rather than a v****a. Gender is the role your society expects you to play based on those biological characteristics. Physical males are expected to be tough- not to cry, not to show any emotion besides aggression and anger, to be forward, both sexually and in other domains of their lives. Physical females are expected to be submissive, more subtly manipulative, geared towards family and child-rearing. In our culture, anyone who steps out of these lines isn't "normal." In other cultures, a physical male is expected to cry at the drop of a hat and tend to all the domestic things while the women go about gossiping about their husbands and being tough. Gender is arbitrary, though, sex is slightly arbitrary as well, basing it off of what's between our legs rather than anything else. -shrug-

Ah, de Beauvoir would adore you. "One is not born, but rather becomes a woman", yes? Existentialism ftw.  

[Xandris]

Priestley

Heh, not to mention things get confusing when one introduces the possibility of having male reproductive organs yet bodily tissues having XX chromosomes. Fushigi told me about this. eek

Did she tell you how those parts are made? wink  

[Priestley]

Xandris

Priestley

Heh, not to mention things get confusing when one introduces the possibility of having male reproductive organs yet bodily tissues having XX chromosomes. Fushigi told me about this. eek

Did she tell you how those parts are made? wink

Something to do with birds and bees, I think. confused  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Galad Damodred

Fushigi na Butterfly

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?

Since always. Sex is your biological anatomy- having a p***s rather than a v****a. Gender is the role your society expects you to play based on those biological characteristics. Physical males are expected to be tough- not to cry, not to show any emotion besides aggression and anger, to be forward, both sexually and in other domains of their lives. Physical females are expected to be submissive, more subtly manipulative, geared towards family and child-rearing. In our culture, anyone who steps out of these lines isn't "normal." In other cultures, a physical male is expected to cry at the drop of a hat and tend to all the domestic things while the women go about gossiping about their husbands and being tough. Gender is arbitrary, though, sex is slightly arbitrary as well, basing it off of what's between our legs rather than anything else. -shrug-

Ah, de Beauvoir would adore you. "One is not born, but rather becomes a woman", yes? Existentialism ftw.

Interestingly enough, it's always the men that have rites of passage that require them to actually do something in order to be fully initiated into manhood. Women are just assumed to be born naturally female- they bleed and that's it, they're a woman. Men have to go out and kill something- or someone- or have a meeting with some great ancestor of the past or lose their virginity. It's only then that they become men. Manhood has to be earned; womanhood is "easy." (I'm not saying this is necessarily right or wrong, this is just the trend in cultures throughout the world).  

[Galad Aglaron]

Fushigi na Butterfly

Galad Damodred

Fushigi na Butterfly

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?

Since always. Sex is your biological anatomy- having a p***s rather than a v****a. Gender is the role your society expects you to play based on those biological characteristics. Physical males are expected to be tough- not to cry, not to show any emotion besides aggression and anger, to be forward, both sexually and in other domains of their lives. Physical females are expected to be submissive, more subtly manipulative, geared towards family and child-rearing. In our culture, anyone who steps out of these lines isn't "normal." In other cultures, a physical male is expected to cry at the drop of a hat and tend to all the domestic things while the women go about gossiping about their husbands and being tough. Gender is arbitrary, though, sex is slightly arbitrary as well, basing it off of what's between our legs rather than anything else. -shrug-

Ah, de Beauvoir would adore you. "One is not born, but rather becomes a woman", yes? Existentialism ftw.

Interestingly enough, it's always the men that have rites of passage that require them to actually do something in order to be fully initiated into manhood. Women are just assumed to be born naturally female- they bleed and that's it, they're a woman. Men have to go out and kill something- or someone- or have a meeting with some great ancestor of the past or lose their virginity. It's only then that they become men. Manhood has to be earned; womanhood is "easy." (I'm not saying this is necessarily right or wrong, this is just the trend in cultures throughout the world).

Oh no, there's female circumcision, scarification, that whole ritual rebirth thingy... but males tend to have it tougher, I think. Getting whipped, having to kill something with their bare hands, going out into the desert on their own for months, being sexually violated...  

[Iron Faith]

i didnt read all of the posts here, but i am inclined to believe that God's gender is male only because almost every reference ti Him in the Hebrew text is in the male form of the word. true, there a few unexplainable neutral references and i think one female reference in the original manuscripts, but these could also be possible mis-translations of the text. languages do have a tendancy to change in 2000 years, but i digress.
also, if God weren't a "male" then why was Jesus a man instead of a woman. he was the Son of God. and if God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one being, then how could one be male and the other female? these are strictly my opinions, and because it's my birthday, you are not allowed to disagree with me. Jokes! xp  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Galad Damodred

Fushigi na Butterfly

Galad Damodred

Fushigi na Butterfly

Priestley

Gender is different than sex? Since when?

Since always. Sex is your biological anatomy- having a p***s rather than a v****a. Gender is the role your society expects you to play based on those biological characteristics. Physical males are expected to be tough- not to cry, not to show any emotion besides aggression and anger, to be forward, both sexually and in other domains of their lives. Physical females are expected to be submissive, more subtly manipulative, geared towards family and child-rearing. In our culture, anyone who steps out of these lines isn't "normal." In other cultures, a physical male is expected to cry at the drop of a hat and tend to all the domestic things while the women go about gossiping about their husbands and being tough. Gender is arbitrary, though, sex is slightly arbitrary as well, basing it off of what's between our legs rather than anything else. -shrug-

Ah, de Beauvoir would adore you. "One is not born, but rather becomes a woman", yes? Existentialism ftw.

Interestingly enough, it's always the men that have rites of passage that require them to actually do something in order to be fully initiated into manhood. Women are just assumed to be born naturally female- they bleed and that's it, they're a woman. Men have to go out and kill something- or someone- or have a meeting with some great ancestor of the past or lose their virginity. It's only then that they become men. Manhood has to be earned; womanhood is "easy." (I'm not saying this is necessarily right or wrong, this is just the trend in cultures throughout the world).

Oh no, there's female circumcision, scarification, that whole ritual rebirth thingy... but males tend to have it tougher, I think. Getting whipped, having to kill something with their bare hands, going out into the desert on their own for months, being sexually violated...

Yes, but those hardly have anything to do with her becoming a woman and more to do with keeping her in check so that she can become a suitable bride. Pretty much, it's universally accepted that menarche marks the beginning womanhood, and while there may be ceremonies and rituals to celebrate this, her womanhood is independent of this. This is just a general rule of course- it's pretty much but not entirely universal.  

[Iron Faith]

also, why is the original text state, "God the Father", or "God our heavenly Father", or somthing along those lines instead of "God the parent" or "mother"?  

[Aladyleyna]

To be honest, I don't actually know. I always thought that God is a male because He is refered to as such in the Bible, and I tend to follow what has already been said. I pretty much grew up with the idea that God was a male because everyone said that He was a male, and it made sense.

At the same time though, I guess it's just for convenience sake. Our limited understanding of God tends to place Him in sterotypes so that it would be easier for us to remember. I guess we need to remember that God is above our limited human understanding, and that limiting Him to a stereotype is not going to work for Him, even though it may be convenient. I guess there would always be an "I guess".