Why is God always perceived as a man?

[Narz]

Well, if we know anything from the whole Zues-Herecules thing, it's that gods get to screw around and make semigod versions of themselves with humans. I think we can go on this precedent for Jesus.

Nah, the ancient Greeks were alot less inhibited than the Monotheistic religions of late. The whole point of the virgin birth was to demonize sex by saying that a pure being could not be born of such a vile act as sexual intercourse.

If Mary was still a virgin after the fact than by definition nothing happened. I feel sorry for God, he's been around since the begginning of time and the only girl he every impregnated was still a virgin afterwards.

 

[EdwardTking]

As a Christian, I don't have a problem with God the Mother.

But when these American feminist bishops start referring to
Jesus the mother, old Ed thinks that it is time for a break.

 

[CurtSibling]

Ever cracked open a Bible?

When it says HE, HIS, HIM, LORD..... that kinda gives it away.

The bible is not a rule book.

.

 

[Sidhe]

Nah, the ancient Greeks were alot less inhibited than the Monotheistic religions of late. The whole point of the virgin birth was to demonize sex by saying that a pure being could not be born of such a vile act as sexual intercourse.

If Mary was still a virgin after the fact than by definition nothing happened. I feel sorry for God, he's been around since the begginning of time and the only girl he every impregnated was still a virgin afterwards.

To be frank I find it doubtfull that Mary was a virgin before she gave birth to Jesus. I mean honestly are we meant to believe that there wedding went unconsumated, bit of a stretch.

Is it really of any relevence whether God is male or female, what difference would it make? If the first priests were priestesses I'm sure you'd all be worshiping a she. The sex of God is an irrlevence when you consider what he is meant to be.

 

[Markus6]

To be frank I find it doubtfull that Mary was a virgin before she gave birth to Jesus. I mean honestly are we meant to believe that there wedding went unconsumated, bit of a stretch.

They weren't married, they were engaged. She was probably about 16 so it isn't so much of a stretch.

 

[Mirc]

Mother would love her child unconditionally, farther always demands things to earn his love.

Really? A mother loves her child unconditionally? This is not true. Do not tell me "you'll get to be 40 and have your own children". You don't know what means to have a mother like... I do. But with a little luck, in September I'll be in London for 3 years, and maybe I'll never see her again.

 

[Sidhe]

They weren't married, they were engaged. She was probably about 16 so it isn't so much of a stretch.

Depends what the customs of the times were, but I supose it's more plausible, I have been misinformed by movies, in these shes like 30 artisitic licence.

I found a really good link about the virgin birth story.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm

The doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus, so central to the traditional Christmas story, was not part of the teaching of the first Christians, whom it should be remembered, also remained within the Jewish faith (Luke 24:52-53). The apostle Paul makes no reference to the virginal conception by the mother of Jesus when speaking of Jesus' origins and divinity. His epistles were written during the 50's A.D. and predate all of the four gospels. Although Paul never met Jesus (who died about 30 A.D.), he personally did know James, the brother of Jesus. Yet despite this eye-witness link to Jesus, Paul apparently knows nothing of the virgin birth, for he states only that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4) and was "descended from David, according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3), thereby implying a normal birth.

There are other differences in the nativity story which serve to lessen its credibility. For example, in an attempt to parallel the importance of Jesus' birth with that of Moses, Matthew describes the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by king Herod as he attempts to kill the infant messiah. This extraordinary event is not attested to by any secular source from the period, nor even referred to by Luke. Indeed, Luke has the family return peacefully to Nazareth after Jesus' birth in Bethlehem (Luke 2:22,39). If the massacre did take place, it does not make sense that Herod's son later recalls nothing about Jesus nor his importance (Matt. 14:1-2). Moreover, if Herod and all the people of Jerusalem knew of the messiah's birth (Matt. 2:3), why is it that later in Jesus' career, the same author claims that people had not heard of his miraculous origin and still questioned his miracles and his teachings (Matt. 13:54-56)?

I like this bit, I always new Herod was alright, deep down

I would suggest that fundementalist steer clear of it though, it's pretty historical, and not very biblical if you know what I mean.

 

[King Flevance]

Why not a woman? If God is all loving, it seems easier to make God a woman, due to the whole motherly instinct. Also, I'd feel better having a woman love me instead of a dude.

Woman are more into the loving thing than men are. Men are more into spanking your ass and teaching you a lesson.

What do you think?

Actually some Christian faiths (or at least one - could be mormons but not sure) believe God is a man and has a Queen. He does not reveal her to "protect her" somehow. Not sure of the specifics there.

Think of it this way: Mother nature is the queen. Unseen directly but always there providing nurishment (sp?) and support. God is the King. Unseen but providing laws to existance and enforcing them. (Life can be cruel = you just got a whoopin' from daddy.)

Added snips:

They just couldn't fathom the idea of female above everything.

I love when women say this. As usually that particular woman has a hard time fathoming a male above everything.

Mother's love is obvious, not under question.
Father's love is more uncertain.

No, I'm not saying that there are no fathers in existance who don't love their children unconditionally, and if you do - good for you.
What I'm saying that traditionally a mother would love her children unconditionally, a father's love would have to be earned.
A mother would focus on the child as a person, the father would focus on the actions.
Father's love would come from what you do, mother's love from who you are.

I disagree with this as I have seen bad mothers and bad fathers. But I can understand the point it is coming from given that there are always exceptions to the rule. I believe the fathers is based off of both - the child's person as well as their actions go hand in hand. Whereas the mother values more of the person. For a man, we learn fast in life that it is your actions that define your person. So both needed weighed equally as charactor traits sometimes compromise actions.

 

[Norseman2]

He's ok with girl-on-girl, but he hates guy-on-guy. It's pretty clear what that means. Either God is a lesbian, or a straight dude. With all the smiting and wrath and stuff, probably a dude.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Seriously, its because we live in a patriarchal society. I think assigning a sex to God is ridiculous, I only say 'he' because Im not comfortable calling him an 'it', and Im not going to be cute and refer to God as 'she', either.

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Why not a woman? If God is all loving, it seems easier to make God a woman, due to the whole motherly instinct. Also, I'd feel better having a woman love me instead of a dude.

Woman are more into the loving thing than men are. Men are more into spanking your ass and teaching you a lesson.

What do you think?

True, God is all loving, but He is also all just, which means He is not averse to spanking your ass to teach you a lesson. I know barely anything about the contents of the Bible, and I can remember the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the 10 plagues of Egypt for the obstinace of Pharaoh, the forbidding of an entire generation of Israelites from entering the Holy Land, the earth swallowing up rebellious Israelites during the 40 years in the desert, and Jesus cursing the fig tree. This is just stuff that I can remember without looking in the Bible, I am sure that if you were to take a closer look in it, you would find scores of other examples of God smacking people around.

 

[Chieftess]

Because if God were a woman, we'd be saying godess.

*ducks*

Anyway, people like to put human terms on things, because that's what people understand best.

 

[Birdjaguar]

In fact...my wife is constantly telling me how a fathers love is far more important than a mothers love. Mothers love = nuturing. Fathers love = defining.

Your wife is very clever.
Mother's love is obvious, not under question.
Father's love is more uncertain.

No, I'm not saying that there are no fathers in existance who don't love their children unconditionally, and if you do - good for you.
What I'm saying that traditionally a mother would love her children unconditionally, a father's love would have to be earned.
A mother would focus on the child as a person, the father would focus on the actions.
Father's love would come from what you do, mother's love from who you are.

Mathilda is right on the money here. In spite of the exceptions, mothers are genetically programmed to be "moms". Once preganncy kicks in and those hormones start flowing, she's a mom like it or not. Dads learn to be be dads and have a testosterone based approval system that is inherently different from what moms experience.

If you look at real life situations, it is the moms who are far more willing to "accept" a wayward child than a dad. The difference shows up when a family is stressed significantly. I would be willing to bet money that if one of your children declared themself an atheist, that your wife would weep and wail and hug them tighter and love them all the more. You would sit them down and try convivnce them them they were wrong and show your love by bringing them back to the faith. For their sake. If they didn't respond, you will begin to distance yourself from them. The same would apply if they "choose" to be gay.

It is easy to "love" children who always do what they are told and never fight for their independence. But love goes beyond kids to "behave" like you want.

Spoiler :

AND a woman who held a babe against
her bosom said, Speak to us of Children. And he said:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.

You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
Which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.

You are the bows from which your
children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Your wife is very clever.
Mother's love is obvious, not under question.
Father's love is more uncertain.

No, I'm not saying that there are no fathers in existance who don't love their children unconditionally, and if you do - good for you.
What I'm saying that traditionally a mother would love her children unconditionally, a father's love would have to be earned.
A mother would focus on the child as a person, the father would focus on the actions.
Father's love would come from what you do, mother's love from who you are.

This is crap. The role was put in place by society itself, it's not some fundamental characteristic.

No you are wrong in this. Culture will shape the family roles played by mothers, fathers, aunts and uncles etc., but maternal love is genetically based and babies are designed to make it easy for adults to want to be attracted to them. The bonding process between parents and child is well established and not invented by society.

 

[puglover]

Why not a woman? If God is all loving, it seems easier to make God a woman, due to the whole motherly instinct. Also, I'd feel better having a woman love me instead of a dude.

Woman are more into the loving thing than men are. Men are more into spanking your ass and teaching you a lesson.

What do you think?

Men usually represent authority. God has no gender of course, when you are describing "him", I suppose it wouldn't hurt to use female pronouns.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

King Flevance was right, actually. Mormons believe that we are the children not just of a Heavenly Father but of a Heavenly Mother as well. God the Father has a wife, who had just as important a role in our creation as he did. The only thing is that for whatever reason God doesn't like to tell us too much about Her. Given how much people make fun of Him, I can see that. So both masculinity and femininity are reflections of divine characteristics.

As for Mary, Matthew (I think) says that she remained a virgin until she gave birth, but obviously she would have had relations with Joseph afterwards - after all, they name some of Jsus' (half-) siblings.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Really? A mother loves her child unconditionally? This is not true. Do not tell me "you'll get to be 40 and have your own children". You don't know what means to have a mother like... I do. But with a little luck, in September I'll be in London for 3 years, and maybe I'll never see her again.

Your bad experience does not mean what Mathilda says is not true. Mixing genetics and culture is an uncertain process and "bad" combinations do show up. It can make life hard.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Why not a woman? If God is all loving, it seems easier to make God a woman, due to the whole motherly instinct. Also, I'd feel better having a woman love me instead of a dude.

Woman are more into the loving thing than men are. Men are more into spanking your ass and teaching you a lesson.

What do you think?

All the religions of old were founded when men were in charge of everything, and women were not. This is why god is always a man. Even in polytheistic religions, the goddesses are usually in a subordinate role.

 

[Eukaryote]

Why not a woman? If God is all loving, it seems easier to make God a woman, due to the whole motherly instinct. Also, I'd feel better having a woman love me instead of a dude.

Woman are more into the loving thing than men are. Men are more into spanking your ass and teaching you a lesson.

What do you think?

Because God made Adam in his own image, he made Eve, to keep Adam company.

 

[general_kill]

Kids without dads (or defining father figures) often have issues. Just like kids raised only by dads can have issues as well.

Personally, I think there is more than just a biological reason that it takes both a man and a woman to have a kid. Developmentally, a kid needs both paternal and maternal nurturing for development. Take away one or the other and something somewhere will be lacking.

This is a pretty ignorant statement MobBoss, then again, I guess you get this a lot. It is only in very modern history that conditions have allowed children to be raised by both fathers and mothers. In history, disease, warfare, and polygamy often meant that children grew up without a father figure. And it wasn't until recent times that child abuse laws have been put in place, so you can bet an arm that kids who did have a father were often abused.

I'm not sure what your definition of "issue" is, but I can list countless figures in history who has major issues who grew up with both a mother and father figure. Abe Lincoln was suicidal and depressed for most of his presidency, Joseph Stalin was... troubled, Hitler, well I can go on and on.