Is God above gender?

[Casualfanboy16]

Not sure how dumb of a question this would be, but something that has been on my mind for a while is this: Is God a being that is above gender? Like, we constantly refer to God using he/him pronouns, but, ultimately, if Adam and Eve were both created in God's image, what does that make God?

 

Also, God doesn't have a giant sky cock or anything as far as we know, as exodus 33:20 does state we can't see his face and live, although that verse didn't say anything about other parts lol. I don't know any other verses it's been a while maybe they do mention it. Anyway...

 

Or could he have both male and female parts like an intersex person (I guess hermaphrodite is a term people would be more familiar with, but I think there's a difference in definition, so I'll just go with the former just in case). 

 

But yeah it's an interesting thought. I remember having this convo with my old science teacher in high school when someone brought it up and I want to hear other people's thoughts on this as well. Unfortunately don't remember what was said in the original convo, and I doubt he remembers either, so what are everyone else's thoughts about this? Has anyone else thought about this?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I believe "God" is a concept in each individuals mind.  Therefore can be whatever each individual or group wants he/she/it to be.  My understanding is that some of the earliest terms for different gods were gender neutral, and some were female.  Yahweh supposedly refers to both sexes.  Yah is male, and weh is female??  Google it.

[Casualfanboy16]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

Yah is male, and weh is female??  Google it.

Huh. Never thought about that lol. Interesting. Guess you learn something new every day.

[pantheory]

16 hours ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

Not sure how dumb of a question this would be, but something that has been on my mind for a while is this: Is God a being that is above gender? Like, we constantly refer to God using he/him pronouns, but, ultimately, if Adam and Eve were both created in God's image, what does that make God?

 

Also, God doesn't have a giant sky cock or anything as far as we know, as exodus 33:20 does state we can't see his face and live, although that verse didn't say anything about other parts lol. I don't know any other verses it's been a while maybe they do mention it. Anyway...

 

Or could he have both male and female parts like an intersex person (I guess hermaphrodite is a term people would be more familiar with, but I think there's a difference in definition, so I'll just go with the former just in case). 

 

But yeah it's an interesting thought. I remember having this convo with my old science teacher in high school when someone brought it up and I want to hear other people's thoughts on this as well. Unfortunately don't remember what was said in the original convo, and I doubt he remembers either, so what are everyone else's thoughts about this? Has anyone else thought about this?

 

Dozens of times in the old testament God is referred to as the father. Jesus said that God was his father, and was the father of us all. The old testament also says that God made Adam in his own image, and that the woman, Eve, was created from Adam's rib. In the old testament it also refers to God in Greek using the pronoun he. The Lord's Prayer says" Our Father who art in heaver ....." So the statements and implications of the Bible are strong that the God of the Bible is a male-like entity.

[Casualfanboy16]

6 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Dozens of times in the old testament God is referred to as the father. Jesus said that God was his father, and was the father of us all. The old testament also says that God made Adam in his own image, and that the woman, Eve, was created from Adam's rib. In the old testament it also refers to God in Greek using the pronoun he. The Lord's Prayer says" Our Father who art in heaver ....." So the statements and implications of the Bible are strong that the God of the Bible is a male-like entity.

So is Eve only partially created in God's image since she was created from Adam's rib, or is she still wholly created in God's image as like an "extension" or part of Adam? I don't know if that makes sense. Like, if God is male-like, what would that make Eve (apart from y'know, woman lol).

[pantheory]

On 6/27/2024 at 11:07 AM, Casualfanboy16 said:

So is Eve only partially created in God's image since she was created from Adam's rib, or is she still wholly created in God's image as like an "extension" or part of Adam? I don't know if that makes sense. Like, if God is male-like, what would that make Eve (apart from y'know, woman lol).

 

Of course such an opinion is just mine alone concerning the meanings of the Bible because I believe that it is 100% BS. My opinion is that in those times there were no queens in Israel or Judea (except for the King's wife or wives), so all ruling figures had to be a strong male and often a fighting-military type like King David.  So a ruling God figure 4,000 years ago at the time the Bible was written, had to be a male.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

~Genesis 1:27

 

I have heard that this passage actually refers to a sort of prototype human who was both male and female, as is the image of god.  Later, when god pulled the "rib" out of the man to make the woman, god was actually separating the genders from one dual-gendered individual into two separate genders.  The implication of this explanation is that god is both male and female.

[Casualfanboy16]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

~Genesis 1:27

 

I have heard that this passage actually refers to a sort of prototype human who was both male and female, as is the image of god.  Later, when god pulled the "rib" out of the man to make the woman, god was actually separating the genders from one dual-gendered individual into two separate genders.  The implication of this explanation is that god is both male and female.

Do you happen to know where you heard this from? I find that concept intriguing. A truly hermaphrodite god is a concept I had in my head for a while.

 

It seems like it's kind of similar to intersex, so that's why I included that part in the post towards the end. I learned about it recently, so my knowledge of it isn't the greatest ever, but if you want to learn about it there are plenty of articles like this one and others out there. Still learning about it and catching up on various terms, but it's an interesting concept. Although apparently no one can truly be both because true hermaphroditism doesn't exist in humans (according to the article, anyway. Again, still researching on this), but there are variations in intersex individuals that don't match up with strictly male or female have me thinking.

 

Okay, this is a bit of a jokey explanation/speculation, but if god is what would be labeled as a 'true hermaphrodite' and intersex people exist, but aren't truly hermaphroditic doesn't this imply, in a way that these people who don't fit into male or female are the closest thing to god? Were intersex people made in God's image, or at least close enough to it??? Lol. But yeah that's just a thought. Still trying to actually look into the science of that, but from a religious lens, it would make sense if you are picking up what I'm putting down haha.

 

Hopefully I'm making sense I am not well-rested lol.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The Eight Genders in the Talmud | My Jewish Learning

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

46 minutes ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

Do you happen to know where you heard this from? I find that concept intriguing. A truly hermaphrodite god is a concept I had in my head for a while.

 

It seems like it's kind of similar to intersex, so that's why I included that part in the post towards the end. I learned about it recently, so my knowledge of it isn't the greatest ever, but if you want to learn about it there are plenty of articles like this one and others out there. Still learning about it and catching up on various terms, but it's an interesting concept. Although apparently no one can truly be both because true hermaphroditism doesn't exist in humans (according to the article, anyway. Again, still researching on this), but there are variations in intersex individuals that don't match up with strictly male or female have me thinking.

 

Okay, this is a bit of a jokey explanation/speculation, but if god is what would be labeled as a 'true hermaphrodite' and intersex people exist, but aren't truly hermaphroditic doesn't this imply, in a way that these people who don't fit into male or female are the closest thing to god? Were intersex people made in God's image, or at least close enough to it??? Lol. But yeah that's just a thought. Still trying to actually look into the science of that, but from a religious lens, it would make sense if you are picking up what I'm putting down haha.

 

Hopefully I'm making sense I am not well-rested lol.

You are thinking in terms of physical reality.   The Bible creation story is NOT physical reality. But if you want to fantasize about a fantasy, go for it!!  

[Casualfanboy16]

12 minutes ago, Weezer said:

You are thinking in terms of physical reality.   The Bible creation story is NOT physical reality. But if you want to fantasize about a fantasy, go for it!!  

Yeah I suppose I am lol

[Casualfanboy16]

52 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The Eight Genders in the Talmud | My Jewish Learning

 

Thanks for this will check it out!!

[walterpthefirst]

Hi there Casualfanboy16.

 

 

While I agree with Weezer, the prime source of information about god's gender in Christianity is, of course, the bible.

 

In the garden of Eden god is described as walking there in the cool of the evening.  So he would seem to walk like a human being.  In the book of Exodus Moses and elders of the Israelites see god's feet.  In the book of Daniel the fingers of a human hand appear from nowhere and write words in the stonework of a royal palace.  Assuming that was god's hand, then it would seem that he has fingers that are probably attached to a hand and therefore arms. I'm sure there are other examples that I can't bring to mind right now.  But the overall impression I get from scripture is that god looks human.

 

He's referred to as a 'he' and is given the titles, Father and Lord, which are male appellations. But if he is a fully functioning human male, then this poses a serious question.

 

Human males have a penis and testicles so that they can mate with human females to create children, but who is god going to mate with?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Casualfanboy16]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hi there Casualfanboy16.

 

 

While I agree with Weezer, the prime source of information about god's gender in Christianity is, of course, the bible.

 

In the garden of Eden god is described as walking there in the cool of the evening.  So he would seem to walk like a human being.  In the book of Exodus Moses and elders of the Israelites see god's feet.  In the book of Daniel the fingers of a human hand appear from nowhere and write words in the stonework of a royal palace.  Assuming that was god's hand, then it would seem that he has fingers that are probably attached to a hand and therefore arms. I'm sure there are other examples that I can't bring to mind right now.  But the overall impression I get from scripture is that god looks human.

 

He's referred to as a 'he' and is given the titles, Father and Lord, which are male appellations. But if he is a fully functioning human male, then this poses a serious question.

 

Human males have a penis and testicles so that they can mate with human females to create children, but who is god going to mate with?

 

Firstly, I'll be responding to the last part because I'm going out of order to answer the main topic...I admit, I don't exactly know how to answer this, but I mean I don't think god really has the need to mate, since he could create life from the dust of the earth. Hell, he could have made us out of literally anything since he can just casually manipulate and morph matter into other things with no effort (even though God rested on the 7th day. Weird lol. You'd think he wouldn't need rest).

 

I wonder really, how much of the image of god we'd have been created in. Really, who is god going to mate with? Regardless of whether or not god had a penis and testicles, god had no use for them, it seems. This also begs the question of how much in the image of god did he make women because they have different parts, so did god just make them up that way to like "compliment" (not sure if that's the right word) the male genitalia; or if it was like how RNP mentioned about a dual-gendered individual and the implication of god being both male and female. So yeah if god is a dual-gendered individual, it would make a bit more sense as to why he created male and female separately, so that we can be made in his image, but not entirely like him. This is only speculation, of course. 

 

Also, a thing I'd like to point out that doesn't exactly have to do with the thread, yet has caught my attention: Reading the first bits of your paragraphs, and after a bit of searching, it just occurred to me how strange it is that the Bible has a couple verses like John 1:18 and Exodus 33:20 that say we cannot see his face, or see him and live, and that no one has ever seen him, but the instances you pointed out in your response state otherwise. I'm not sure why we can see other parts of him and live, assuming they supposedly saw his fingers before, and other parts, but not his face. Or is "see" supposed to be taken in a different context because there's probably a million different interpretations of a single word or maybe I'm overthinking it. Slight tangent aside, this is an interesting topic and I'm having fun with this! Looking forward to your or other's responses!

[walterpthefirst]

Casualfanboy16.

 

 

I'm sorry, but sometimes the bible is just plain contradictory.  For example, here are two quotes from the same book (Exodus) and the same chapter (33) supposedly written by the same author, but which say two contradictory things.

 

 

7 Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the “tent of meeting.” Anyone inquiring of the Lord would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. 

8 And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. 

9 As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses. 

10 Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to their tent. 

11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

 

 

Then, just a few verses later...

 

 

18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 

20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 

22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 

23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

 

 

At first I thought god must giant-sized so that he could cover ALL of Moses with his hand.  But a more sensible reading would be that god was human sized and simply covered Moses' eyes with his hand to prevent his face from being seen.  Because to see the face of god is instant death.

 

 

But these two passages still appear to say two different things.  I don't know how they can both be true.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Casualfanboy16]

23 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Casualfanboy16.

 

 

I'm sorry, but sometimes the bible is just plain contradictory.  For example, here are two quotes from the same book (Exodus) and the same chapter (33) supposedly written by the same author, but which say two contradictory things.

 

 

7 Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the “tent of meeting.” Anyone inquiring of the Lord would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. 

8 And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. 

9 As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the Lord spoke with Moses. 

10 Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to their tent. 

11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

 

 

Then, just a few verses later...

 

 

18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 

20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 

22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 

23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

 

 

At first I thought god must giant-sized so that he could cover ALL of Moses with his hand.  But a more sensible reading would be that god was human sized and simply covered Moses' eyes with his hand to prevent his face from being seen.  Because to see the face of god is instant death.

 

 

But these two passages still appear to say two different things.  I don't know how they can both be true.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Yeah, the Bible just be like that sometimes lmao. Just more proof it was man-made, really.

 

Back on topic though, what are your thoughts on my first two paragraphs before my tangent? Thank you for your responses thus far (and everyone else's too)!!

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

Firstly, I'll be responding to the last part because I'm going out of order to answer the main topic...I admit, I don't exactly know how to answer this, but I mean I don't think god really has the need to mate, since he could create life from the dust of the earth. Hell, he could have made us out of literally anything since he can just casually manipulate and morph matter into other things with no effort (even though God rested on the 7th day. Weird lol. You'd think he wouldn't need rest).

 

 

Yes, it's really nonsensical to think about an eternal, all powerful god getting an erection, penetrating a female god and inseminating her to produce offspring.

 

But the bible is of little help when it comes to understand god's form.  John 4 : 24 says that god is a spirit.  Whereas we've just read OT passages that describe him having a physical form.  There's just too much contradiction to make sense of the whole mess.

 

But I can help you out about the Sabbath, Casualfanboy16.  The Pharisees tried to catch Jesus out by asking him why his disciples were doing work on the Sabbath day.  Here's how he answered them.

 

Mark 2 : 27 & 28

 

27 Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 

28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

 

This is usually taken to mean that god rested after his six days of creation, not because he was tired but as an example of how human beings should live.  Work for six days and then rest on the seventh.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

 

Really, who is god going to mate with? Regardless of whether or not god had a penis and testicles, god had no use for them, it seems. 

 

Evidently he had a go with Mary to produce Jesus.  

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

 

 

I wonder really, how much of the image of god we'd have been created in. Really, who is god going to mate with? Regardless of whether or not god had a penis and testicles, god had no use for them, it seems. This also begs the question of how much in the image of god did he make women because they have different parts, so did god just make them up that way to like "compliment" (not sure if that's the right word) the male genitalia; or if it was like how RNP mentioned about a dual-gendered individual and the implication of god being both male and female. So yeah if god is a dual-gendered individual, it would make a bit more sense as to why he created male and female separately, so that we can be made in his image, but not entirely like him. This is only speculation, of course. 

 

 

 

 

Well, logic can be of some help here.

 

If god were exclusively male, with no trace of female DNA and nothing feminine in his mind or body then he wouldn't be able to create a female human.  That's because an act of creation requires some knowledge of the thing being created.  At least that logic applies to us humans.

 

When I create a drawing of a car on a piece of paper I can do so because I know what a car looks like.  But if I were a member of a tribe that had never had any contact with our technological civilization and knew nothing about cars, then I couldn't draw one.  

 

So, for god to create Eve he must have known all about the female mind and body, right down to the genetic level.  On the basis of that logic RNP's idea might hold water.  But we really are on the edge of speculating here.

 

The only bible passage I can think of that might be of some help is Matthew 22 : 30

 

30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 

 

This suggests that even though certain angels have male names (Gabriel, Michael, Raphael) they are, in fact, neuter, having no gender at all.  If humans become like this when they rise from the dead and enter heaven then perhaps this is how things are in heaven for everyone - including god.

 

But that's just a guess.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Casualfanboy16]

21 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Evidently he had a go with Mary to produce Jesus.  

True, but god must've not been good enough to satisfy Mary sexually. Maybe the Bible just says Jesus was born of a virgin to cover up his lack of a sex life. As we all know, the second coming hasn't happened yet.

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

Firstly, I'll be responding to the last part because I'm going out of order to answer the main topic...I admit, I don't exactly know how to answer this, but I mean I don't think god really has the need to mate, since he could create life from the dust of the earth. Hell, he could have made us out of literally anything since he can just casually manipulate and morph matter into other things with no effort (even though God rested on the 7th day. Weird lol. You'd think he wouldn't need rest).

 

I wonder really, how much of the image of god we'd have been created in. Really, who is god going to mate with? Regardless of whether or not god had a penis and testicles, god had no use for them, it seems. This also begs the question of how much in the image of god did he make women because they have different parts, so did god just make them up that way to like "compliment" (not sure if that's the right word) the male genitalia; or if it was like how RNP mentioned about a dual-gendered individual and the implication of god being both male and female. So yeah if god is a dual-gendered individual, it would make a bit more sense as to why he created male and female separately, so that we can be made in his image, but not entirely like him. This is only speculation, of course. 

 

Also, a thing I'd like to point out that doesn't exactly have to do with the thread, yet has caught my attention: Reading the first bits of your paragraphs, and after a bit of searching, it just occurred to me how strange it is that the Bible has a couple verses like John 1:18 and Exodus 33:20 that say we cannot see his face, or see him and live, and that no one has ever seen him, but the instances you pointed out in your response state otherwise. I'm not sure why we can see other parts of him and live, assuming they supposedly saw his fingers before, and other parts, but not his face. Or is "see" supposed to be taken in a different context because there's probably a million different interpretations of a single word or maybe I'm overthinking it. Slight tangent aside, this is an interesting topic and I'm having fun with this! Looking forward to your or other's responses!

 

All of these things might be considered as having meaning to them if one believes in the God and the bible, but it is meaningless to me with the belief that the God of the bible stories and the Adam and Eve story is 100% BS --  with zero chance of their validity. As I have said many times before, I would bet my immortal soul against a six pack of peer that the God of the bible stories are pure fiction -- but it did have some fictional interest to me like the story of Alice in Wonderland, or the Easter Bunny stories which I also read many years ago as a kid going to Sunday school.

 

[Casualfanboy16]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The only bible passage I can think of that might be of some help is Matthew 22 : 30

 

30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 

 

This suggests that even though certain angels have male names (Gabriel, Michael, Raphael) they are, in fact, neuter, having no gender at all.  If humans become like this when they rise from the dead and enter heaven then perhaps this is how things are in heaven for everyone - including god.

 

But that's just a guess.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

I don't have much to say about the statement before this because I see the logic and it makes sense to me.

 

The concept of everyone becoming gender neutral in Heaven is actually kinda interesting, as we would be like angels basically. That certainly is an interesting guess.

[Casualfanboy16]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

All of these things might be considered as having meaning to them if one believes in the God and the bible, but it is meaningless to me with the belief that the God of the bible stories and the Adam and Eve story is 100% BS --  with zero chance of their validity. As I have said many times before, I would bet my immortal soul against a six pack of peer that the God of the bible stories are pure fiction -- but it did have some fictional interest to me like the story of Alice in Wonderland, or the Easter Bunny stories which I also read many years ago as a kid going to Sunday school.

 

Just a six pack?? What about a lifetime supply?? I don't drink and never really plan to, but you might as well get a lifetime supply it's the better option. Lol!

 

But yeah the Bible interests me on a from a work of fiction, as well as a historical text standpoint because it's like a glimpse into the past. A past I sure am glad I wasn't living in, because I would be stoned to death!

[pantheory]

19 minutes ago, Casualfanboy16 said:

Just a six pack?? What about a lifetime supply?? I don't drink and never really plan to, but you might as well get a lifetime supply it's the better option. Lol!

 

But yeah the Bible interests me on a from a work of fiction, as well as a historical text standpoint because it's like a glimpse into the past. A past I sure am glad I wasn't living in, because I would be stoned to death!

 

Would love a lifetime supply but who could I make the bet with. if another human, what could they do with my immortal soul and what proof could be involved? If God, he would not pay off and I would simply go to hell for making the bet. If Satan, he might pay off if he existed, but I would go to a psychiatrist soon thereafter and maybe spend the rest of my life in an insane asylum. My best bet might be with a devil worshiper that believed he could use me for a human sacrifice, but then I'd have to run away soon after the bet in fear for my life. So it would be a hard bet to win.  

[Casualfanboy16]

5 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Would love a lifetime supply but who could I make the bet with. if another human, what could they do with my immortal soul and what proof could be involved? If God, he would not pay off and I would simply go to hell for making the bet. If Satan, he might pay off if he existed, but I would go to a psychiatrist soon thereafter and maybe spend the rest of my life in an insane asylum. My best bet might be with a devil worshiper that believed he could use me as a human sacrifice, but then I'd have to run away soon after the bet in fear for my life. So it would be a hard bet to make and win.  

Man, this is quite the conundrum. I think you should go with the Devil worshipper and just get the beer and run. Maybe if the blood on their pentagram was still fresh enough they'll slip on it trying to chase after you lol. Oooooor, if they wear a creepy cultist robe if they're really leaning into the mysterious cult vibe, they will simply trip over their robes. Either way, devil worshipers seem to be the easiest option. I'm sure that there are more creative ways to trip them up to make your escape, but those are just some suggestions!