God's Sex.

• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-01-24 04:49
  Sexless.
  Also: How do we know Eve wasn't just a switched up version of Adam?
• Kollin wrote on 2012-01-24 04:49

  Quote from TA;746486:

  
  Given that at our own current advancement, and my own work, we're on the verge of being able to live 1,000 years or more

  
  
  I certainly hope this is optional, I have little interest in my lifespan as it is, I don't want an extension.
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-01-24 04:53

  Quote from Kollin;746480:

  I don't think "God" exists, or believe in a lot of the [S]garbage[/S] stuff in the bible and most religious texts, but if "God" existed, "God" is an all-powerful deity that can do whatever "he" wants and be whatever "he" wants, whether it be male, female, sexless, or a fish.

  
  
  I find this post very.. antagonizing to anyone who believes in what you call garbage.
• Chihaya wrote on 2012-01-24 04:59

  Quote from Cynic;746458:

  
  Also, another thing--
  
  If he created men in his image and was a man himself, why didn't he make men the ones able to bare a child? If he himself was a creator and wanted to make men in his likeness, wouldn't it have made sense to give them the ability to create life as-well, instead of women?

  
  
  I'm taking this from the Bible again.
  After Adam and Eve sinned, he stated "Adam will have to work hard to eat, and Eve will have pain in childbearing".
  
  I can only conclude that God made it so, like he made light or created the universal gravitational constant of -6.67*10^-19.
  
  EDIT:
  
  I'm going to troll some people here now.
  A lot of members don't believe in God for whatever reasons you have, but you...
  1) Celebrate Christmas
  2) Have the concept of a deity, and can discuss it
  
  weird, no?
• TA wrote on 2012-01-24 05:05

  Quote from Kollin;746498:

  I certainly hope this is optional, I have little interest in my lifespan as it is, I don't want an extension.

  
  
  

  [Image: http://i.minus.com/ieHeDmyP3obts.jpg]

  
  
  Problem solved?
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-01-24 05:13

  Quote from Chihaya;746512:

  
  
  I'm going to troll some people here now.
  A lot of members don't believe in God for whatever reasons you have, but you...
  1) Celebrate Christmas
  2) Have the concept of a deity, and can discuss it
  
  weird, no?

  
  
  Number 1... I've wondered that too.
  I guess it's just because of the free ****
• Episkey wrote on 2012-01-24 05:29
  I should emphasize that if your talking about God, of most belief systems, God is a Spirit and does not possess human characteristics or limitations. If God was bound to being male or female, then I believe it wouldn't be right since you would placing limitations on God that are not appropriate to his nature.
  
  As for written text, masculine pronouns are used to describe God in the Bible. God was never given a feminine pronoun, but the gender of a word in Greek or Hebrew has nothing to do with gender identity.
  
  It's like Spanish in that sense. Take the word mapa, it has the masculine el - so if written it's el mapa. Of course male or female has nothing to do with maps, and the same thing holds true to people as well.
  
  
  

  Quote from Hannah's Lover;746497:

  
  Also: How do we know Eve wasn't just a switched up version of Adam?

  
  
  I don't really understand this question ... what exactly did you mean by that?
  Also, welcome back.
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-01-24 05:31

  Quote from Episkey;746571:

  I should emphasize that if your talking about God, of most belief systems, God is a Spirit and does not possess human characteristics or limitations. If God was bound to being male or female, then I believe it wouldn't be right since you would placing limitations on God that are not appropriate to his nature.
  
  As for written text, masculine pronouns are used to describe God in the Bible. God was never given a feminine pronoun, but the gender of a word in Greek or Hebrew has nothing to do with gender identity.
  
  It's like Spanish in that sense. Take the word mapa, it has the masculine el - so if written it's el mapa. Of course male or female has nothing to do with maps, and the same thing holds true to people as well.
  
  
  
  
  I don't really understand this question ... what exactly did you mean by that?
  Also, welcome back.

  
  
  Well if Adam was created in God's image, what if Eve is just like Adam, but made biologically different so we could reproduce.
  Thus, Eve would still be in God's image, right?
  Sexual organs were made for reproduction, So God wouldn't have genitalia because he would have no need to sexually reproduce, so his sex would be kind of irrelevant.
  
  God would resemble a man, because Adam was made first, and then Eve was altered?
  Just my idea.
• Kollin wrote on 2012-01-24 05:32

  Quote from Hannah's Lover;746537:

  Number 1... I've wondered that too.
  I guess it's just because of the free ****

  
  
  Exactly. Free ****. I don't celebrate it, nor will I celebrate it, but if someone wants to give me a gift out of the kindness of their heart or for whatever reason, I will gladly accept it (as long they kept the receipt). The concept of a deity is nothing more than a fanciful fairy tale used for amusement.
• Episkey wrote on 2012-01-24 05:34

  Quote from Hannah's Lover;746574:

  Well if Adam was created in God's image, what if Eve is just like Adam, but made biologically different so we could reproduce.
  Thus, Eve would still be in God's image, right?
  Sexual organs were made for reproduction, so sex would be kind of irrelevant.

  
  
  I believe so. Because Genesis 1:26-27 says:
  
  “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
  
  So, I think God created both of them in his image. That being said, man and woman are only patterned after the image of God - they are not tiny “copies” of God. The fact that there are men and women does not require God to have male and female features. Therefore, being made in the image of God has nothing to do with physical characteristics.
• Chihaya wrote on 2012-01-24 05:36

  Quote from Hannah's Lover;746574:

  Well if Adam was created in God's image, what if Eve is just like Adam, but made biologically different so we could reproduce.
  Thus, Eve would still be in God's image, right?
  Sexual organs were made for reproduction, So God wouldn't have genitalia because he would have no need to sexually reproduce, so his sex would be kind of irrelevant.
  
  God would resemble a man, because Adam was made first, and then Eve was altered?
  Just my idea.

  
  
  To answer your question, the term "resembling God" probably means something like "resembling Human", in the sense we had two arms, two legs, a face with eyes, ears, mouth, and such. Of course, other animals have this, but arranged in different ways.
  
  

  Quote from Kollin;746577:

  Exactly. Free ****. I don't celebrate it, nor will I celebrate it, but if someone wants to give me a gift out of the kindness of their heart or for whatever reason, I will gladly accept it (as long they kept the receipt). The concept of a deity is nothing more than a fanciful fairy tale used for amusement.

  
  
  Sorry to burst your bubble a bit, but I'm slightly offended by the comments you've been posting.
  
  The theory of exchanging presents has NOTHING to do with the original Christmas (Jesus's Birth). The theory of Santa Claus and giving presents to each other is an event created by humans, and is NOT real. (aka. Sorry kids, Santa isn't real).
  
  In this sense, when I said "celebrate Christmas", it is implied that Christmas refers to the event where Jesus was born, and not some other fake event that the entire world celebrates.
  Because of this, when you exchange gifts on the 25th of December, you can't say that's "Christmas".
  
  The mere fact that people use the term "Christmas" contradicts their claim of not believing in God.
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-01-24 05:37

  Quote from Episkey;746581:

  I believe so. Because Genesis 1:26-27 says:
  
  “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
  
  So, I think God created both of them in his image. That being said, man and woman are only patterned after the image of God - they are not tiny “copies” of God. The fact that there are men and women does not require God to have male and female features. Therefore, being made in the image of God has nothing to do with physical characteristics.

  
  
  Wait, but I thought image = appearance
  what else would he be recreating, since humans are no where near god-like?
  
  Also edited my post a bit
  
  edit:
  @Chihaya
  
  that makes sense xD
  
  btw: Episkey
  I found a church that I attend every sunday morning and night and wednesday night
  So I would like to thank you for helping me take the step to bringing my faith back.
• Excalibur wrote on 2012-01-24 05:37
  I think that God would have no gender, though I suppose on the perspective. Personally, God for me would be some slander and radish people made up to explain things that they couldn't have due to lack of science.
• Kollin wrote on 2012-01-24 05:39

  Quote from Episkey;746581:

  I believe so. Because Genesis 1:26-27 says:
  
  “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
  
  So, I think God created both of them in his image. That being said, man and woman are only patterned after the image of God - they are not tiny “copies” of God. The fact that there are men and women does not require God to have male and female features. Therefore, being made in the image of God has nothing to do with physical characteristics.

  
  
  Is the "our image" part referring to the angels, multiple deities, or referencing to the fact that "God" is an omniscient being that is a part of everything?
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-01-24 05:41

  Quote from Excalibur;746586:

  I think that God would have no gender, though I suppose on the perspective. Personally, God for me would be some slander and radish people made up to explain things that they couldn't have due to lack of science.

  
  
  But even with our vast scientific knowledge we have today, we still can't prove or disprove the existence of God.
  I don't think we ever could.
  

  Quote from Kollin;746590:

  Is the "our image" part referring to the angels, multiple deities, or referencing to the fact that "God" is an omniscient being that is a part of everything?

  
  after reading his Chihaya's post, I think it's human-like.