Why do some people think God isn't male or female? Wasn't Jesus clearly a male? Did Jesus say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father".

Jesus clearly called Him His Father--not mother. Why have we gotten so stinking politically correct in our culture that we can't even identify God as being male?

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/31...4o4wy.html

This is the most rediculous argument I've ever seen. First of all, Im not a religious person (at least not in the traditional sense). But if I was (and I was in the past), I never even looked at God in human terms. I mean come on, do you also think "he" goes to the toliet and goes to bed at night and commutes to work in the morning as well??? God isnt a homo sapien. You are looking at this way too literally. But then again, I guess thats what literalists do.......

niuhuskie84 Wrote:This is the most rediculous argument I've ever seen. First of all, Im not a religious person (at least not in the traditional sense). But if I was (and I was in the past), I never even looked at God in human terms. I mean come on, do you also think "he" goes to the toliet and goes to bed at night and commutes to work in the morning as well??? God isnt a homo sapien. You are looking at this way too literally. But then again, I guess thats what literalists do.......

I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus Christ did that. The Bible says, "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God". So yes, God did go to the bathroom and went to sleep at night, but He didn't work a straight 8 to 5. He worked a lot more than that. And, He did commute to work.

You may think I'm being too literal, but you're being way to ethereal.

I think the Bible says that man was made in God's image. This is one of the places in which the literalists and the interpretationists clash. If man and God are made in the same image, then God has all the same features of men, including two arms, two legs, a head, a *****, and an anus, even an appendix. Why? That makes no sense at all.

Endzone, you brought this up. What do you think. Do we look like God?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:I think the Bible says that man was made in God's image. This is one of the places in which the literalists and the interpretationists clash. If man and God are made in the same image, then God has all the same features of men, including two arms, two legs, a head, a *****, and an anus, even an appendix. Why? That makes no sense at all.

Endzone, you brought this up. What do you think. Do we look like God?

Yes, I think the similarity will be striking. God may not have a *****, but in bodily form He will be very much like us. The sexes seem to be something exclusively made for humans. I'm thinking of the first chapter of Genesis where the word tells us that "male and female made He them".

Of course we can't begin to understand the glory of God. I mean how brillant His face is. The bright rainbow that surrounds His throne, etc. But I think in heaven we are going to be shocked at how similar it is to life here only it will be a place of bliss where everything is perfect. But there will be houses (mansions), lakes, trees, etc. But of course they will all be very different in many ways, but very recognizable. The Bible says "we shall be known even as we are known". So, we must keep a lot of our physical features or else we wouldn't know each other. I didn't know those guys that came to work today dressed up in their halloween costumes. They looked completely different. We will not be changed that much yet we will no longer be flesh and blood. God is a big enough God to do it.

I think "sex" is the wrong word. I believe Gender is more correct.

There are many people who believe that when God created mankind that he created both male and female to represent Him more completely.

Nevertheless, God chooses to use masculine pronouns and words for Himself. So, I defer to God when asking questions about God!

I cringe to think people read an English translation (middle English at that) and say "The word is 'man' so we must take that literally."

Of course, this is the difference between literalists and interpretationists. An interpretationist looks at the word "man" and thinks, what he really means is "mankind", humanity, the human race. A literalist says, if he says "man", He means "man", not "woman" or "mankind'

Still, it seems a little inconsistent on Endzones part to say the bible is literal, except in this one part; it's inconvenient, so let's leave it out. Apparently he thinks God looks like a Ken doll.

This (generally) is how my doubts of the Bible first took seed - members of my church who would declare that THIS verse should be taken literally, but THAT verse needs interpretation.

Then you can throw in the inconsistancies/contradictions, the way the Bible came to be THIS set of books and ONLY this set of books, the many translations, etc, and i wonder why it is worth debating what it says/means.

Hey everybody, what color is God?

niuhuskie84 Wrote:This is the most rediculous argument I've ever seen. First of all, Im not a religious person (at least not in the traditional sense). But if I was (and I was in the past), I never even looked at God in human terms. I mean come on, do you also think "he" goes to the toliet and goes to bed at night and commutes to work in the morning as well??? God isnt a homo sapien. You are looking at this way too literally. But then again, I guess thats what literalists do.......

I thought rain was god peeing. I thought thunder was god bowling. Are you telling me this isn't the truth? :)

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Of course, this is the difference between literalists and interpretationists. An interpretationist looks at the word "man" and thinks, what he really means is "mankind", humanity, the human race. A literalist says, if he says "man", He means "man", not "woman" or "mankind'

You can still be a literalist and recognize that words have more than one meaning. That is only compounded by being ignorant of the original language AND the language of translation. The Middle English of Tyndale or the KJV is different than what we speak today. It's close enough that it can be understood...but not w/o some effort.

People who put in no such effort are as much or more heretics than the people they bash.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Hey everybody, what color is God?

Good question.

Also, is he tall, short, lean, fat, bald? Does he clip his toenails?

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Hey everybody, what color is God?

That is not a big issue. Here is the question:

He everybody, what color is(was) Jesus?

uhmump95 Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Hey everybody, what color is God?

That is not a big issue.

To some it might be a big issue. I would think that those who think God is some human with super powers it might be.

Quote: Here is the question:

He everybody, what color is(was) Jesus?

That's absurd! Jesus was a chameleon that could change his color based on his mood.

Wasn't it obvoius to all when Jesus hung on the cross naked that he was in fact a male? He was the only begotton of the Father. The Bible says "He thought it not robbery to be equal with God". Apparently He was always with the Father from the beginning. AND, He was a male.

uhmump95 Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Hey everybody, what color is God?

That is not a big issue. Here is the question:

He everybody, what color is(was) Jesus?

tan

Any logical person would know he was middleastern He probabbly wasn't "African" black...and he couldn't have been Anglo white. He looked any typical Arab in the area. Its shear geography my dear Watson.

PirateTreasureNC Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Hey everybody, what color is God?

That is not a big issue. Here is the question:

He everybody, what color is(was) Jesus?

tan

Any logical person would know he was middleastern He probabbly wasn't "African" black...and he couldn't have been Anglo white. He looked any typical Arab in the area. Its shear geography my dear Watson.

Are not the Isrealites some sort of caucasian? Jesus was some form of white, no matter how much the pro-black movement wants to prove otherwise. I could understand the tanned complexion if he she whatever were born in Saudi Arabia, but people from Israel are white.

Jesus would of looked like the men and women who lived in that area for thousands of years. He would of statistically been around 5'4-5'6 and had olive complexion. The marketing machine that is the Roman Catholic Church spruced him up a bit when creating a Western European dominated Christian Church.
He probably would of looked somewhat like this


As for the gender of God I would have to go with male. Based on the kill record of God and the subjugation of women with Mosaic Laws it would be hard to argue that any female would create those laws.
That would be like a chicken running Kentucky Fried.

Ziggy Stardust Wrote:

PirateTreasureNC Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Hey everybody, what color is God?

That is not a big issue. Here is the question:

He everybody, what color is(was) Jesus?

tan

Any logical person would know he was middleastern He probabbly wasn't "African" black...and he couldn't have been Anglo white. He looked any typical Arab in the area. Its shear geography my dear Watson.

Are not the Isrealites some sort of caucasian? Jesus was some form of white, no matter how much the pro-black movement wants to prove otherwise. I could understand the tanned complexion if he she whatever were born in Saudi Arabia, but people from Israel are white.

Well we only have three groups technically, Cacausoid, Negroid and Mongloid. These designations have been debated for years.
You could have a citizen of India be considered Cacausoid yet could easily have darker skin then a African.

Ethnic groups from Israel, Palestine, Canaan etc. would be considered cacausoid in the broad sense but as a white guy that lived in the Middle East and visited Israel I can tell you the only white people would be the citizens that immigrated to Israel just prior and after 1948. Most of what you see of Israel today is European immigrants who flooded into Israel after it was created in 1948 so in that sense yes there are a lot of white Israelis today.
If you want to go back to the Jewish blood line of Jesus you would probably have to visit Jews in Syria, Iran, the hand full that were in Iraq and Lebanon. Are they white?? What is white?? Definitely not the European version of white.

If Jesus was 6 ft blonde hair and blue eyes that would have to be considered his first miracle and there would of been as much written of his odd appearance as his works.

ShoreBuc Wrote:He probably would of looked somewhat like this

I think he would have had a longer beard. Beards were pretty important in that culture.