The word of God

[poopdogg]

@Mangled

Science is not everything

Scientology?

what I mean is science can't answer or knows everything.

[Hair|Trigger]

Or you just read my post and decided to be on my side because im cool =D

[marine b. harm]

God was an artist see, and when he made man he decided that his best medium was some dirt that was laying around at the time. Man = dirt. Then he made woman using that dude (adam)'s rib. Woman = rib of dirt.

If you actually read that and expect it to be true literally, then you are idiot. But if you take it as a metaphor, then you are true.

dirt is a metaphor for black people and even scientists agree that man came from africa

this is p. cool

[poopdogg]

Or you just read my post and decided to be on my side because im cool =D

I don't know you. How should I know your "cool". ña

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Get back on topic.  This was going well, and it would be a shame if a bunch of idiots like you ruined it.  (Especially you, marine b. harm; you've done nothing but post garbage since you joined the forums.)

Every time I hear that it always feels like implies we were just made to look like him.  Not to act like him.  And since both male and female were created in "his" image, shouldn't "it" be more appropriate then him?  How does a male create a female in his own image without...scary results?

Well, that's the problem right there.  You're treating the word "image" as something that refers to visual similarities.  But that can't be the case, if God is truly immaterial (and therefore without form).  What single word would you choose that says we share God's qualities?

Consider a picture of St. Peter's Basilica.  It's impressive, sure, but there are a number of shortcomings.  You can only see it from one angle.  You can only see it at one state (varying amounts of light, tourists, damage, etc.)  You can only see the outside (meaning that all of the interior is still unknown to you).  Finally, there's no sounds, no smells, no tastes, and no feelings (such as the wind blowing or the heat of the sun).  This image lacks 99.9% of what makes the Basilica what it is, and your perception of what it truly represents changes based on where and when the picture is taken.

Which brings me to the question, do believers believe God is male? If so why? Does he have a penis and testicles and testosterone-related hair-loss problems? Does he produce sperm? What if God is really of indeterminate gender but the fact that the Bible was only written by men gives God a false masculine ego.

They really shouldn't, since gender is a physical attribute.  However, there are two reasons that God is referred to as a male.  The first and most obvious reason is that the masculine form of a word is used when referring to a collective.  For example, "mankind" refers to all humans, and encompasses both male and female people and qualities.  The second reason is that while gender itself may be restricted to physical shape and capabilities, the state of being masculine or feminine does not.  That's why many languages use a masculine noun for some objects and a feminine noun for others.  God is often referred to as a male because the qualities he displays are often more representative of the masculine rather than the feminine (especially in the Old Testament).

[Mangled*]

@Mangled

You compared God with science.  your saying we get to choose what makes you a "Man", the physical features of a male.  The word Man does not nessecarily mean Male, it's more focused towards the "mankind" sort of thing.

If I say "once there was a man..." you will immediately produce a mental image of a male adult human. Besides, I said male you thicko.

Which brings me to the question, do believers believe God is male?

@Mangled

Science is not everything

You're sat at a computer that is the product of decades and decades of science. Science is certainly not "everything" but science is very important and all modern societies are based around it. This thread isn't about science vs creation, but for purposes of not losing integrity scientific arguments are accepted as part of the debate.

They really shouldn't, since gender is a physical attribute.  However, there are two reasons that God is referred to as a male.  The first and most obvious reason is that the masculine form of a word is used when referring to a collective.  For example, "mankind" refers to all humans, and encompasses both male and female people and qualities.  The second reason is that while gender itself may be restricted to physical shape and capabilities, the state of being masculine or feminine does not.  That's why many languages use a masculine noun for some objects and a feminine noun for others.  God is often referred to as a male because the qualities he displays are often more representative of the masculine rather than the feminine (especially in the Old Testament).

I agree that God does seem a masculine figure in the Judeo-Christian faiths although I can't tell if that's influenced by the writers or of masculine-dominance we have in our societies.

[Demonic]

Meh.

The dogmatic views of God feed a few strange things. One would be that he seems masculine, and is refered to as the Father, which -imo- is more of a product of the society that grew from the teachings. The other is stuff like creationism and intelligent design.

Making things up. Right. An omnipotent being is most likely unimaginable and undescribable. My ramblings in this thread where just attempts to tackle the thought itself - however, these things, like what exactly God is, the existance of heaven and hell, the existance of an immortal soul, etc. are -once again, imo- NOT the main point of christianity, and it's sad that we have to debate over them again and again.

The real fundaments of the church and the whole religion were laid down by Paul, and his letters are worth reading for anyone, because they have every essential teaching described in a clear and simple way.