• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why did God choose to be a man?

If gender was necessary for creation then one must envisage a female God ?
 
So, a bull can be a milk cow if he so chooses to be a she...got it...
I couldn't find a case for bulls, but where it comes to humans, here's an example.
It has been previously reported that men with and without known disease can produce milk, but no studies to date have demonstrated that their secretion contains milk constituents produced specifically by the breast. The present study shows the presence of lactose, alpha-lactalbumin, and lactoferrin in the breast secretion of a 27-yr-old male who had galactorrhea associated with hyperprolactinaemia. The concentrations of lactose, proteins, and electrolytes in the breast secretion of this man are within the range of colostrum and milk obtained from normal lactating women.
This has been known since Darwin's day:
"It is well known that in the males of all mammals, including man, rudimentary mammae exist. These in several instances have become well developed, and have yielded a copious supply of milk. Their essential identity in the two sexes is likewise shown by their occasional sympathetic enlargement in both during an attack of the measles. Their origin, however, can hardly be due to inheritance from a male ancestor. It is much more probable that they have been developed in the female, and have been transmitted to the male in a latent state, as in the case of many other secondary sexual characters."

— Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray. (Volume 1, p. 211)
Read online at Darwin Online
Full text at Project Gutenberg
Suck on that...
 
Because women hadn't been invented yet?
 
I doubt you know what you're talking about. Imagine that. So easy to say.

Lees

he doesn't.

some flap their Jaws, doing a Hipster pose with Zero substance.

and then move on to another thread, spreading the Ignorance.


Lees, they could learn and apply.

but it is only 'could'.


Desperate as Jamie says.

.
 
So which is is it? God is masculine or god is? They don’t mean the same thing. The former limits god to a human trait. The latter doesn’t. What force greater than god defines god? And how do you know this? Who are you to tell us what gods is? I will let it do the talking for itself.

Pay attention. 'God is'. And God is masculine. They do mean the same thing. No, the human trait is because 'God is'. Geen that was easy. Nothing defines greater than God. There is no greater than God. I am a child of God and one who knows my Father, and Lord Who is Jesus Christ.

Who the hell are you?

Lees
 
Pay attention. 'God is'. And God is masculine. They do mean the same thing. No, the human trait is because 'God is'. Geen that was easy. Nothing defines greater than God. There is no greater than God. I am a child of God and one who knows my Father, and Lord Who is Jesus Christ.

Who the hell are you?

Lees
You have quite the imagination.
 
I doubt you know what you're talking about. Imagine that. So easy to say.

Lees
I also doubt She finds uptight religious types with NO sense of humor very entertaining.
 
I also doubt She finds uptight religious types with NO sense of humor very entertaining.

Well, God has His own sense of humor. He is quite amused at the mockers and empty words of the unbelieving. (Ps. 2:1-5) "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us brek their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure."

Lees
 
The Lord, God, is not human. The Lord, God, is not flesh and blood. There are writings by humans that had not yet fully grasped the Nature of The Lord and they added elements to the narrative that they could understand and that the readers could understand. Of course, back then, there were few "readers" so it was the lecturing/preaching that was the key to spreading The Word; but still following faulty writings/assumptions by those still trying to understand the Truth of the situation. As humans evolve there is a greater Understanding and The Written Word can be amended as required by Instructions.
 
Pay attention. 'God is'. And God is masculine. They do mean the same thing. No, the human trait is because 'God is'. Geen that was easy. Nothing defines greater than God. There is no greater than God. I am a child of God and one who knows my Father, and Lord Who is Jesus Christ.

Who the hell are you?

Lees
I doubt you know what you're talking about. Imagine that. So easy to say.
 
Isaiah 66:13
13 As one whom his mother comforts,
so rI will comfort you;
you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.

Isaiah 42:14 (ESV):
14 For a long time I have held my peace;
I have kept still and restrained myself;
now I will cry out like a woman in labor;
I will gasp and pant.

Isaiah 49:15 (ESV):
15 “Can a woman forget her nursing child,
that she should have no compassion on
the son of her womb?
Even these may forget,
yet I will not forget you.


The Bible has descriptive language using God’s voice from a female perspective. Keep in mind that God is spirit which means things like gender don’t really map cleanly.
 
Last edited:
The insistence on God as male is ... striking. It suggests that some people have become so obsessed with sex, gender, sexuality and such, that they imagine that gender actually precedes or defines God. Yet surely a believer should agree that God created and defined all things.

Note the peculiar tie-in of this with the "transgender ideology". The premise of transgender therapy is that a person can be "a man trapped in a woman's body", or vice versa. Those who believe in a soul might say the soul inside the body is male or female. But the difference between male and female is a tiny detail - one little chromosome that is mostly junk DNA, some proteins for semen, and one gene to throw a switch that changes some visible details of development. Does a soul have a mole?

If Christians believe that Man was created in God's image, what does that phrase mean? Does it mean a body or a soul? Does it mean that the same appearance to the eye, or the same ability to imagine and create? There are many ways to take such words; the pursuit of truth from beyond what science can tell us is not a precise science. But for that reason, it should never be an excuse for us to do things we know are mean and wrong.
 
Pay attention. 'God is'. And God is masculine. They do mean the same thing. No, the human trait is because 'God is'. Geen that was easy. Nothing defines greater than God. There is no greater than God. I am a child of God and one who knows my Father, and Lord Who is Jesus Christ.

Who the hell are you?

Lees

Pay more attention. Giving god a limiting attribute of being masculine is putting something above god. Saying god is doesn’t place any limits but it also is just nonsensical woo talk. Saying god is masculine limits god. You are attempting to claim to know specifically what god is when god is beyond human definition. Your own views of god are logically contradictory.

I am who am.
 
Well, God has His own sense of humor. He is quite amused at the mockers and empty words of the unbelieving. (Ps. 2:1-5) "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us brek their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure."

Lees

What is amusing are those who think they can know objectively things about god that limit what god can be. They quote a book that didn’t pre exist the very thing it purports to describe.
 
No, God is masculine, a man. He is Spirit, and He is masculine.

No, God is not transgender and not female. He never has and never will exist as a woman.

No, the case can be made that the transgender is a picture of absolute confusion and perversion.

Lees
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!
 
No, God is masculine. Bible 2.0 is not the Bible. (Heb. 1:2-3) "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son....Who bing the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person....."

Jesus Christ is the very image of God in every way. Physically and Spiritually.

Lees
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.
 
Yet surely a believer should agree that God created and defined all things.
I sure do...

"male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27

If Christians believe that Man was created in God's image, what does that phrase mean?
Since God is a spirit, it cannot be a physical likeness...we are capable of displaying similar attributes...love/hate/justice/mercy...
 
I sure do...

"male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27


Since God is a spirit, it cannot be a physical likeness...we are capable of displaying similar attributes...love/hate/justice/mercy...

You are applying human traits to god. You are pretending to define the substance of god by calling it a spirit. God does not bend to human definitions. God transcends human concepts like spirit. God is not subject to such things at all. God is above all human emotions and concepts. God is ineffable and inexplicable. No one can know god or anything about it.
 
You are applying human traits to god. You are pretending to define the substance of god by calling it a spirit. God does not bend to human definitions. God transcends human concepts like spirit. God is not subject to such things at all. God is above all human emotions and concepts. God is ineffable and inexplicable. No one can know god or anything about it.
But it is fair to call God a creator, isn't it? To call God good? To say that God is capable of understanding? Is it possible that to the extent we are able to understand whatever is best and most essential to the nature of a good person, we might also understand then the nature of God?
 
But it is fair to call God a creator, isn't it? To call God good? To say that God is capable of understanding? Is it possible that to the extent we are able to understand whatever is best and most essential to the nature of a good person, we might also understand then the nature of God?

It isn’t fair to define the undefinable in any way. Creation up is but a human concept. God is beyond such concepts. We can’t understand a god from looking at humans or physical reality. None of it has anything to do with god.
 
You are applying human traits to god. You are pretending to define the substance of god by calling it a spirit. God does not bend to human definitions. God transcends human concepts like spirit. God is not subject to such things at all. God is above all human emotions and concepts. God is ineffable and inexplicable. No one can know god or anything about it.
Wrong, God applied His traits to humans when He created us...

When man was created, he was made in God’s image, according to his likeness. (Ge 1:26, 27) This, of course, did not mean physical image or appearance, for God is a Spirit, and man is flesh. (Ge 6:3; Joh 4:24) It meant that man, different from the “unreasoning animals” (2Pe 2:12), had reasoning power; he had attributes like those of God, such as love, a sense of justice, wisdom, and power. (Compare Col 3:10.)

He had the ability to understand why he existed and his Creator’s purpose toward him. Hence he, unlike the animals, was given the capacity for spirituality. He could appreciate and worship his Creator. This capacity created a need in Adam. He needed more than literal food; he had to have spiritual sustenance; his spirituality had to be exercised for his mental and physical welfare.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002739?q=made+in+god's+likeness&p=sen
 
Back
Top Bottom