The answers to your question are respectively "neither" and, if you want to get technical about things, "male."
It is "neither" because God is ultimately a sexless incorporeal spirit of limitless power and intelligence.
That being said, however; it should be pointed out that Christ was, and according to most theology, still is, a man. Therefore, God can, technically speaking, be said to be "male" in nature rather than female.
Well?
Deep subject.
Let's see. Women have periods, babies, menopause...
I'd guess male.
Both, and neither.
What does Jesus's gender have to do with God's gender?
Doesn't the Bible refer to him as Him repeatedly and describe Him as a male?
Jesus is the second persona of the Holy Trinity, and therefore God.
With male pronouns, yes. Again, however, given the fact that God is a spiritual, rather than physical being, this doesn't really mean much of anything.
pull up its skirt and give it a look?
Well?
Tried that with a chicken... didn't help.
Neither. God is not a person. Any description that attaches personal attributes to God are just very vague analogies that allow man to imagine *something*, at least a remote glimpse of God, but the analogy should not be mistaken for reality. God is incomprehensible by definition, as the comprehended (man) can never fully understand the comprehending (God).
It is my belief that God sent countless messengers or prophets to mankind, who founded new religions or rather "updated" old ones. Among others, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed and Baha'u'llah were such divine prophets sent by the one and only God, and accordingly, all of the religions they founded are equally true. Differences in these religions are due to the necessities of a fallible, developing mankind in different stages of its development.
That's a fundamental teaching of my religion, so I have to conclude that all those seemingly conflicting images of God and metaphysical explanations in these different religions are equally true, and where we perceive unreconcilable differences, we either don't try hard enough to concile them, or hit the barrier of our limited fallible human understanding.
The different religions are just looking at the same reality from different perspectives. Likewise, God is not anymore a person than He is a force, a principle or a manner of thinking.
Yeah if god was a snake you'd need a "sexting probe":mrgreen:
If God was a snake wouldn't we be following Lucifer?
Tried that with a chicken... didn't help.
I thought that the Trinity was Father, Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit. Doesn't that mean that Jesus IS God? Then what is the Father?
To be the creator, God would have to be a hermaphrodite. I don't mean that to be snarky, just realistic. The odds are the God doesn't look a whole lot like you do.
that or Thulsa Doom (extra credit if you get the reference without google)
good point-order up some apples
why did you try that with a chicken?
I was bored. Tried it with a "Turtle" too... nothing definitive there either.
I was bored. Tried it with a "Turtle" too... nothing definitive there either.