God (boy? girl? both? neither?)

[zz1000zz]

Somehow I failed to respond to a post some time back. Please pardon the lateness of this response.

Priestley

I have made clear by my use of 'gender' in this thread that I am referring to biological sex. The primary purpose of biological sex is to produce offspring. God does not need to reproduce. The only evidence for His gender/sex are characteristics associated with the 'male' gender/sex of our species.

For all intents and purposes, I'm avoiding including the complexities of chromosomal abnormality and gender identity in my argument. They may be relevant but they would only serve to complicate the issue.

You are free to use "gender" this way. It is not what gender means, so using it this way will likely cause some confusion. If you understand this and are willing to deal with it, so be it.

P.S. I do not believe it is sensible to use say biological sex has any "purpose," and it certainly does not have a "primary purpose."  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

Somehow I failed to respond to a post some time back. Please pardon the lateness of this response.

Priestley

I have made clear by my use of 'gender' in this thread that I am referring to biological sex. The primary purpose of biological sex is to produce offspring. God does not need to reproduce. The only evidence for His gender/sex are characteristics associated with the 'male' gender/sex of our species.

For all intents and purposes, I'm avoiding including the complexities of chromosomal abnormality and gender identity in my argument. They may be relevant but they would only serve to complicate the issue.

You are free to use "gender" this way. It is not what gender means, so using it this way will likely cause some confusion. If you understand this and are willing to deal with it, so be it.

"Gender" means "sex" as well as "sexual identity"[1]. I am not only free but correct to use it in such a way. However, I understand how it might be confusing, so I'll use the term "sex" in future.

zz1000zz

P.S. I do not believe it is sensible to use say biological sex has any "purpose," and it certainly does not have a "primary purpose."

What is the problem here? You'll have to be more specific than quoting the terms with which you have difficulty. How did you read it?  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

zz1000zz

Somehow I failed to respond to a post some time back. Please pardon the lateness of this response.

Priestley

I have made clear by my use of 'gender' in this thread that I am referring to biological sex. The primary purpose of biological sex is to produce offspring. God does not need to reproduce. The only evidence for His gender/sex are characteristics associated with the 'male' gender/sex of our species.

For all intents and purposes, I'm avoiding including the complexities of chromosomal abnormality and gender identity in my argument. They may be relevant but they would only serve to complicate the issue.

You are free to use "gender" this way. It is not what gender means, so using it this way will likely cause some confusion. If you understand this and are willing to deal with it, so be it.

"Gender" means "sex" as well as "sexual identity"[1]. I am not only free but correct to use it in such a way. However, I understand how it might be confusing, so I'll use the term "sex" in future.

Simple dictionary entries tend to be miserable sources on disputes of actual meanings (note the link you provide disagrees with itself on this issue). The distinction between "gender" and "sex" is often ignored by people, but this is due primarily to bad practice. In a discussion when the difference between the two concepts is important, there is no reason to use gender to mean sex.

Priestley

zz1000zz

]P.S. I do not believe it is sensible to use say biological sex has any "purpose," and it certainly does not have a "primary purpose."

What is the problem here? You'll have to be more specific than quoting the terms with which you have difficulty. How did you read it?

I disagree with saying a biological aspect has any "purpose." Biological sex may have roles, effects and outcomes, but "purpose" implies something far beyond any of that.  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

Somehow I failed to respond to a post some time back. Please pardon the lateness of this response.

Priestley

I have made clear by my use of 'gender' in this thread that I am referring to biological sex. The primary purpose of biological sex is to produce offspring. God does not need to reproduce. The only evidence for His gender/sex are characteristics associated with the 'male' gender/sex of our species.

For all intents and purposes, I'm avoiding including the complexities of chromosomal abnormality and gender identity in my argument. They may be relevant but they would only serve to complicate the issue.

You are free to use "gender" this way. It is not what gender means, so using it this way will likely cause some confusion. If you understand this and are willing to deal with it, so be it.

"Gender" means "sex" as well as "sexual identity"[1]. I am not only free but correct to use it in such a way. However, I understand how it might be confusing, so I'll use the term "sex" in future.

Simple dictionary entries tend to be miserable sources on disputes of actual meanings (note the link you provide disagrees with itself on this issue). The distinction between "gender" and "sex" is often ignored by people, but this is due primarily to bad practice. In a discussion when the difference between the two concepts is important, there is no reason to use gender to mean sex.

Perhaps it is because I have no formal education in subjects relating to anthropology that I conflated the terms 'gender' and 'sex', or that I see no need for the distinction, but I have used sufficient language in response to the relevant posts to clarify which sense of 'gender' I mean. If you would like me to go over anything I have said so far in this thread via PM, I can accommodate. I have already agreed to clarify my language further. This is no longer an issue.

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

]P.S. I do not believe it is sensible to use say biological sex has any "purpose," and it certainly does not have a "primary purpose."

What is the problem here? You'll have to be more specific than quoting the terms with which you have difficulty. How did you read it?

I disagree with saying a biological aspect has any "purpose." Biological sex may have roles, effects and outcomes, but "purpose" implies something far beyond any of that.

In the sense I used it, it is synonymous with 'function' and 'reason for being', e.g. "a screwdriver's purpose is to screw screws."

Priestley

Offspring is created via sexual reproduction, which requires meiosis, which requires chromasomes from both male and female. This is the sole reason for us being male or female.

Do you still disagree, or is this simply another problem you have with my choice of words?  

[Lazarus The Resurected]

Priestley

Lazarus The Resurected

I'm still wondering why the question is even being posed. with all the other crap to fight over/ debate in the bible why would the issue of God's gender even come up.

I'm surprised you have to wonder. Questions and issues are raised and discussed here because people are interested in doing so, mostly to gain different perspectives. The clue is in the guild name.

Lazarus The Resurected

that being said God would most likely be both and neither. beign intangible means you have no physical form at all, thus neither. Although personality-wise I'd have to say both. God is vengeful and hot-tempered as well as nurturing and insanely jealous.

These characteristics aren't limited to gender.

Lazarus The Resurected

on the other hand since god is a figment of someone's imagination so the point is pretty much mute.

That's you're opinion and you're entitled to it. The word for which you're looking is 'moot'.

thanks for the spelling correction. as for the aplication of personality traits towards different genders, you are correct. the traits that i mentioned are not nesscisarily atributed to either gender although they are more prevalent in one than anohter.  

[Priestley]

Lazarus The Resurected

the traits that i mentioned are not nesscisarily atributed to either gender although they are more prevalent in one than anohter.

I disagree. Any constraints placed upon or freedoms given towards the display of emotions from different genders are from society. That is to say that what you talk about is not a result of biological sex.  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

]P.S. I do not believe it is sensible to use say biological sex has any "purpose," and it certainly does not have a "primary purpose."

What is the problem here? You'll have to be more specific than quoting the terms with which you have difficulty. How did you read it?

I disagree with saying a biological aspect has any "purpose." Biological sex may have roles, effects and outcomes, but "purpose" implies something far beyond any of that.

In the sense I used it, it is synonymous with 'function' and 'reason for being', e.g. "a screwdriver's purpose is to screw screws."

Priestley

Offspring is created via sexual reproduction, which requires meiosis, which requires chromasomes from both male and female. This is the sole reason for us being male or female.

Do you still disagree, or is this simply another problem you have with my choice of words?

Again, it was just your choice of words. Purpose and function are quite different.  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

Priestley

zz1000zz

]P.S. I do not believe it is sensible to use say biological sex has any "purpose," and it certainly does not have a "primary purpose."

What is the problem here? You'll have to be more specific than quoting the terms with which you have difficulty. How did you read it?

I disagree with saying a biological aspect has any "purpose." Biological sex may have roles, effects and outcomes, but "purpose" implies something far beyond any of that.

In the sense I used it, it is synonymous with 'function' and 'reason for being', e.g. "a screwdriver's purpose is to screw screws."

Priestley

Offspring is created via sexual reproduction, which requires meiosis, which requires chromasomes from both male and female. This is the sole reason for us being male or female.

Do you still disagree, or is this simply another problem you have with my choice of words?

Again, it was just your choice of words. Purpose and function are quite different.

'Purpose' (first definition, first sense) is synonymous with 'function' (first definition, first sense).

If you misunderstand, just ask me to clarify. However, I am convinced that you do understand despite my exhaustive clarification. Why are you still pointing out the differences in the meanings of the words if I did not use the words in the senses that made them mean different things? I reason that you mistook the sense(s) in which I was using one or more words, thought I was arguing something that I wasn't and are simply saving face because of an unwillingness to accept that you were mistaken. If you still believe you are correct, you are arguing style-over-substance, which you should know is fallacious.  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

zz1000zz

Again, it was just your choice of words. Purpose and function are quite different.

'Purpose' (first definition, first sense) is synonymous with 'function' (first definition, first sense).

The two words are quite different. That there is overlap in their meaning does not allow one to simply use the two interchangeably.

Priestley

If you misunderstand, just ask me to clarify. However, I am convinced that you do understand despite my exhaustive clarification. Why are you still pointing out the differences in the meanings of the words if I did not use the words in the senses that made them mean different things? I reason that you mistook the sense(s) in which I was using one or more words, thought I was arguing something that I wasn't and are simply saving face because of an unwillingness to accept that you were mistaken. If you still believe you are correct, you are arguing style-over-substance, which you should know is fallacious.

At no point did I misunderstand your posts due to your word choices, nor do I believe there is anything to indicate otherwise. I do not see how anything I have said could be taken as an attempt to "save face."

The reason I corrected your word choices is simple. I may be able to understand the intent of your post when you use incorrect wording and not need any clarification. However, it is quite possible other people will be confused by your word choice. For instance, if I use "gender" in one way, then you use "gender" in a different way, it is quite likely other people will not realize the distinction.

To keep things clear, I need to make the distinction apparent. I can do this by qualifying "gender" every time I use the word, or I can do it by pointing out I disagree with your use of the word. I have never had difficulty understanding what you meant in this topic. I simply have attempted to clarify the meanings of words to prevent confusion.  

[Priestley]

I have agreed that my choice of words might be unclear or less appropriate, but it has been correct. While it might have been unclear, no one has expressed any confusion over my use of language. I have been careful to accomodate not only people's possible confusion by qualifying my use of language but being available to further explain my points in the event that they are confused. I appreciate you are trying help but there is no reason to derail the thread because of it. It is a non-issue.

Back to the topic...  

[zz1000zz]

Derail the thread? Nothing I posted was designed to start discussion over a new topic. I tried quite hard to make each of my posts nothing more than a footnote discussing technical subtleties being lost in the discussion. A person reading the topic could then read my post and see the fine details, without having to ever have those details be a focus of the topic.

This is quite reasonable, and nothing I posted should have derailed the topic.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Except now it's been derailed, cuz the two of you are arguing over the meaning of words. Again. You know what he means, he knows what you mean, I don't think either of you should have to change which words you choose, so long as everyone knows what you're talking about. Which I'm pretty sure everyone does. So let's move on, please.  

[isabella jolie]

I think the Lord is neither sex. I believe God is sexless, that God is spirit.

Although, when I speak of God, I use "him"
I suposse I use that pronoun because as a child I though of God as male. 3nodding  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Clearly Jesus was male, so it makes sense to use the masculine pronoun to refer to Him, but when it comes to God the "Father," technically it wouldn't matter if God was God the "Mother." God is Spirit- spirits are sexless. 3nodding