The gender/race of god

rapier · Post by **rapier** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:41 pm

Aah, I thought something like that...

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:42 pm

Back in High School, when I was still trying to figure out 'girls', I knew for certain that God was a woman.

Azeroth · Post by **Azeroth** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:43 pm

In this scene I will be playing the character of Huck Finn and Eminem will be playing the role of Aunt Polly.

Aunt Polly just got through *****ing at Huck for not being a "good" christian, to which he replies...

"If aunt Polly is goin to heaven, I think I'd rather go to the other place."

Anybody who has read this book knows that Aunt Polly is a self righteous christian, and by the sounds of his posts Eminem is similar in many ways.....

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 12:59 pm

@Azeroth: It seems everybody gets the urge to flame M&M.
He's quite obbsessed with his erligion. He's trying to convert us "sinners" too.

Azeroth · Post by **Azeroth** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 1:10 pm

I don't consider my self to be an atheist, but rather, agnostic. I don't really care one way or the other. I just wish people would leave each other alone and let each individual develop his/her own thoughts on god.

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 1:14 pm

Posted by Azeroth -

I don't consider my self to be an atheist, but rather, agnostic. I don't really care one way or the other. I just wish people would leave each other alone and let each individual develop his/her own thoughts on god.

Or any subject for that matter

If we were all exactly the same, and perceived everything in exactly the same way It would be such a boring world. How educating to be able to discuss our differences

I must admit, from the posts I have read, I have not interpreted anyone trying to convert anyone else. Maybe I have missed something *shrug*

Azeroth · Post by **Azeroth** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 1:18 pm

Boring yes, but violent no.

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 1:19 pm

But there was an older topic in which M&m and posted qotes from the bible, and he/she always continues the debates onto the other boards.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 1:26 pm

Eminem has as much right to post his opinions as anyone. There is no reason to attack him, if you feel there is any specific problem with Eminem's posts that might violate forum rules then PM or mail me about it and i will see what i can do.

If there are no specific problems with his posting, then please refrain from personally attacking him.

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/sitefeatures/forumrules.php"]Forum Rules[/url]

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com"]Gamebanshee[/url] - Make your gaming Scream

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 2:22 pm

Originally posted by Azeroth:
@EMINEM You really believe everything that little book says don't you?

'Pretty much. Why? What do you believe in?

GO! DUBYA GO!

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 2:25 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM:
'Pretty much. Why? What do you believe in?

I believe Azeroth has already posted he is agnostic.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 2:40 pm

Originally posted by Azeroth:
@EMINEM You really believe everything that little book says don't you?

To me, the interesting question (at this point) is what that "little book" really does say on the issue. Eminem's quoted Jesus as calling God "Father," but there's no followup on what the Aramaic word for "father" meant either literally, or in a cultural context.

It could mean exactly what Eminem has implied, by quoting Webster's--though I wonder about that: after all, isn't calling God "father" less about the sex of God, than about the male parent/child relationship as perceived at that time and place?

And does "Father" actually mean that? A lot of meaning is lost without context. Let me give an instance: on one list some time ago, a particularly rabid Pentacostal was endlessly baiting Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox with sleazy remarks made about Mary (Jesus' mother) "sleeping around." His point, under all the hatred, was that there are biblical references to Jesus' brothers, and not simply in a religious sense. This would appear to throw the matter of Mary's unwillingness to engage in sex after Jesus' birth, a tradition in both the Western and Eastern churches, out the window.

But in fact, to this day (and certainly as far back as three thousand years ago, based on contemporary documents), Semitic families were extended ones; and one's cousins were one's brothers and sisters, quite literally. Frequently, they lived under one roof, and in any case, this was a standard mode of address.

So that Jesus addressing others as "brothers" did not necessarily mean "the sons of my mother" but just as possibly "the sons of my uncles and aunts."

Context is important. And this applies to the word "Father," as well.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 2:53 pm

Originally posted by fable:
I always understood that the Aramaic word translated as "father" (please excuse me; I don't have it handy at the moment) actually refered to "generative principle" rather than a different word which would be "father." Yes, I know the two are sometimes considered synonomous among humans, but that issue aside, I'm wondering if, when we're discussing a discorporate, universal being, equating this principle to "male" isn't extremely limiting.

First, the New Testament was written in Greek, not aramaic. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and some Aramaic.

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive these people, becasue they don't know what they are doing."

Luke 23:46
Then Jesus shouted, "Father, I entrust my spirit into your hands!"

I do not remember the exact location(I think it is in the first verse I quoted), but at some point in the Gospels, Jesus called God "abba" of which I believe is a very personal way of saying "father," and basically means that Jesus was saying something like "Daddy." If I'm a little off on what I'm saying, it's because it's been a few years since I learned this.

One more thing, when refering to the diety worshipped by Jews and Christians, it is "God" not "god." "God" is his name. Using "god" is refering to any diety of male gender from any mythology/religion other than Christianity and the Jewish religion.

As far as God's "race," he has no definite appearance. Any pics drawn that are supposedly of God are merely an artists representation of what that person thinks God looks like.

*falls off her soapbox, having never had the intention to get on it in the first place* Geesh, look what you caused, fable.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 2:57 pm

Originally posted by fable:
I always understood that the Aramaic word translated as "father" (please excuse me; I don't have it handy at the moment) actually refered to "generative principle" rather than a different word which would be "father." Yes, I know the two are sometimes considered synonomous among humans, but that issue aside, I'm wondering if, when we're discussing a discorporate, universal being, equating this principle to "male" isn't extremely limiting. @Eminem, you have considerable experience in reading and interpreting the bible. What *is* the word used for father, taking into account cultural context?

Can a discorporate universal being that informs everything be said to have genitals? And no, I'm not being facetious. Who are we to put limitations on something which is beyond imagination?

[ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

"... pulls out Hebrew and Greek Expository Dictionary..."

Let me see... it says here that the word Father in Hebrew is "ab," and relates to the familial relationship represented by the word "father." This is the word's significance in its first Biblical appearance: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." The word is also used in conjunction with "em" (mother) to represent one's parents. But unlike the word "em," the word "ab" is never used of animals.

... "Ab" also means "grandfather" or "greatgrandfather," or any one of the entire line of men from whom a given individual is descended. Thus, "Father" does not necessarily mean the man who directly sired a given individual.

... "Ab" can be a title of respect, usually applied to an older person, to a teacher, to a priest, or to an advisor (I left out the Biblical references). In each case, the one described as father occupied a position or status and received the honor due to a "father."

... In conjunction with "bayit" (house), the word "ab" can mean "family." The plural used by itself connotes the same meaning.

... God is described as the "father" of Isreal, the One who begot and protected them, the One they should revere and obey. He is especially the protector or the "father" of the fatherless.

In the Greek (New Testament) language, the word is "pater" from a root signifying "a nourisher, protector, upholder," and is used:

a. of the nearest ancestor
b. the progenitor of a people, or forefather
c. one advanced in the knowldge of Christ
d. metaphorically, of the originator of a family or company of persons animated by the same spirit as himself, as of Abraham.
e. of one who, as a preacher of the gospel and teacher, stands in a "father" place, caring for his spiritual children
f of the members of the Sanhedrin, as of those who exercised religious authority over others
g. of God in relation to those who have been born again
h. of God as the Father of light, the source and giver of whatsoever provides spiritual illumination

Unfortuanately I don't have an Aramaic dictionary at hand, so I can't help you there, but I hope the above sheds some light on your question.

GO! DUBYA GO!

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 3:10 pm

Originally posted by fable:
To me, the interesting question (at this point) is what that "little book" really does say on the issue. Eminem's quoted Jesus as calling God "Father," but there's no followup on what the Aramaic word for "father" meant either literally, or in a cultural context.

It could mean exactly what Eminem has implied, by quoting Webster's--though I wonder about that: after all, isn't calling God "father" less about the sex of God, than about the male parent/child relationship as perceived at that time and place?

And does "Father" actually mean that? A lot of meaning is lost without context. Let me give an instance: on one list some time ago, a particularly rabid Pentacostal was endlessly baiting Roman Catholics, Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox with sleazy remarks made about Mary (Jesus' mother) "sleeping around." His point, under all the hatred, was that there are biblical references to Jesus' brothers, and not simply in a religious sense. This would appear to throw the matter of Mary's unwillingness to engage in sex after Jesus' birth, a tradition in both the Western and Eastern churches, out the window.

But in fact, to this day (and certainly as far back as three thousand years ago, based on contemporary documents), Semitic families were extended ones; and one's cousins were one's brothers and sisters, quite literally. Frequently, they lived under one roof, and in any case, this was a standard mode of address.

So that Jesus addressing others as "brothers" did not necessarily mean "the sons of my mother" but just as possibly "the sons of my uncles and aunts."

Context is important. And this applies to the word "Father," as well.

That still doesn't say whether or not the ones referred to as Jesus' brothers were his mother's sons or not.

Also, if I remember correctly, there is a place where at least one of Jesus' brothers is referred to as the son of Joseph.

I also do not believe that you are right, fable, about the use of the word "brother."

Yshania · Post by **Yshania** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 3:16 pm

Does the word 'brother' specifically refer to family members, or could he be calling his fellow men 'brother'?

Just a thought (having not read the HB)

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 3:48 pm

Brother - "adelphos" in Greek

... denotes "a brother or near kinsman"; on plural, "a community based on identity of origin or life." It is used of -

1. male children of the same parents
2. male children of the same mother
3. male descendants of the same parents
4. people of the same nationality
5. amy man or neighbor
6. persons united by a common interest
7. persons united by a common calling
8. mankind in general
9. the disciples of Christ, and so by implication all believers

Matthew 13:55 mentions Jesus having "brothers," their names being James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Various interpretations concerning their relationship with Jesus have existed since the first century: they were the sons of Joseph by a previous mnarriage (according to Epiphanes) or were cousins (according to Jerome). The most naural conclusion, however, is that they were the later sons of Joseph and Mary, younger half-brothers of Jesus, since the Greek form of "adelphos" used in the passage of Scripture above is that of number 3 - that is, male descendents of the same parents.

Go! Dubya GO!

Word · Post by **Word** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 3:58 pm

Through various tranlastions the bible may lost its onriginal meanings andd such. The translator could manipulate the wording until it means something completly different from what the original author might have meant. Also the Chruch has manipulated the bible to say what they want it to say especially in the Middle Ages. Since more than half than the population couldn't read maniplution would have been easy. It is proven that the Chruch removed Adam's first wife from the Bible because they condemed divorce. Adam scorned his first wife(don't remember her name its L something) in favor of Eve. She then turned into the serpent and you know the rest.

Azeroth · Post by **Azeroth** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:12 pm

@ Eminem So if god looks like a man, can he reproduce like a man? Or is "man" simply a form god takes so it will be easier on his children?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Sep 03, 2001 4:15 pm

Originally posted by Word:
Through various tranlastions the bible may lost its onriginal meanings andd such. The translator could manipulate the wording until it means something completly different from what the original author might have meant. Also the Chruch has manipulated the bible to say what they want it to say especially in the Middle Ages. Since more than half than the population couldn't read maniplution would have been easy. It is proven that the Chruch removed Adam's first wife from the Bible because they condemed divorce. Adam scorned his first wife(don't remember her name its L something) in favor of Eve. She then turned into the serpent and you know the rest.

I don't think so. Translations into different languages will differ (slightly), and doctrinal biases by certain denominations may creep into their translations (The Jehovah's Witness' Bible is a good example), but if you go back to the original Greek manuscripts and work from there, you should be able to obtain the correct scriptural interpetation which the New Testament authors intended.

GO! DUBYA GO!