Is God a sexist concept?

[Shrykull]

I was thinking (perhaps you women can answer this too) do you consider the idea of a male (or female if you are male) creator god a sexist concept, I do, since God "created man in his own image" and god is perfect, etc. And after Eve let's Adam eat the apple God enslaves women to men for all eternity, the male as the ultimate relfection of god, what could be more sexist than that? And what exactly does it mean by god is male, does that mean he can have children if he had a female counterpart?

[Darth Wong]

Of course the Biblical God is a sexist concept. Most people dismiss it as non-literal imagery, but the fact is that taken literally (as the fundies do), God looks like a male human, made Adam in his image, and then made Eve only because Adam needed a "helper". If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is.

[InnerBrat]

I voted no, because a gendered God is in itself not sexist, although the example you gave is one of religion being sexist, which I think it is.

I prefer the idea of twin Gods - the Father Son and the Mother Earth (although I don't believe in them - atheist pagan and all), but I don't see this as being a particularly sexist concept.

[Robert Treder]

I voted 'yes' just for the hell of it, but the Christian God isn't sexist, IMO. If he's supposed to be unique, then he has no gender. He isn't male if he can't reproduce, is he? So he's more like C-3PO or R2-D2; sort of male-ish.

[Wicked Pilot]

The fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage is definately not sexist. Come to think of it, I can't even tell if it's a boy dragon or a girl dragon. How do you tell if a dragon is male or female?

[ArmorPierce]

Bleh, I voted yes but from it I meant the christian god

[SyntaxVorlon]

The fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage is definately not sexist. Come to think of it, I can't even tell if it's a boy dragon or a girl dragon. How do you tell if a dragon is male or female?

Females have Horns in on their heads and are bigger if memory serves.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

The concept of a supreme being doesn't have to be sexist, but the Biblical God is a sexist concept.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I was thinking (perhaps you women can answer this too) do you consider the idea of a male (or female if you are male) creator god a sexist concept, I do, since God "created man in his own image" and god is perfect, etc. And after Eve let's Adam eat the apple God enslaves women to men for all eternity, the male as the ultimate relfection of god, what could be more sexist than that? And what exactly does it mean by god is male, does that mean he can have children if he had a female counterpart?

The Christian God is definitely a sexist concept. Especially if you take the Bible word-for-word. God is distinctly male, and all His angels are also distinctly male. His alleged son, Jesus Christ is a man, who apparently wanted little to do with women, including his own mother. And at least one of the early apostles was a vehement homophobe. So yes, the concept of God, at least the Christian one, is sexist.

[SAMAS]

I dunno about that. I still keep thinking he did the Marvin Gaye at least once with Mary Magdaline.

[NecronLord]

The fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage is definately not sexist. Come to think of it, I can't even tell if it's a boy dragon or a girl dragon. How do you tell if a dragon is male or female?

Let it out with the other dragons. If it lays eggs, it's female.

[InnerBrat]

The fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage is definately not sexist. Come to think of it, I can't even tell if it's a boy dragon or a girl dragon. How do you tell if a dragon is male or female?

It depends on the species, really. As Dragon Queens are so rare, I'm guessing it's male.
How many dragons has it killed in the last 24 hours?

[Pastor Andy]

The concept of God as expressed in the Bible is not an inherently sexist concept. An infinite being revealing itself to finite beings would be compelled to do so in terms and concepts that the finite could grasp. The use of male-gender pronouns in the biblical text is just a cultural and psychological accomodation to humanity's limitations (specifically the limitations of ancient Jewish culture).

I was thinking (perhaps you women can answer this too) do you consider the idea of a male (or female if you are male) creator god a sexist concept, I do, since God "created man in his own image" and god is perfect, etc. And after Eve let's Adam eat the apple God enslaves women to men for all eternity, the male as the ultimate relfection of god, what could be more sexist than that? And what exactly does it mean by god is male, does that mean he can have children if he had a female counterpart?

Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." The use of "man" in this passage is a poetic device representing all of humanity. Each individual human carries the image of God (what exactly that is remains for another day! ).

Regarding female "enslavement" after the Fall, that is a fallacy. Both Adam and Eve (the serpent, as well) were cursed. Actually, all of creation was covered by that curse. There was no special singling out of women by God in Genesis 3.

The Christian God is definitely a sexist concept. Especially if you take the Bible word-for-word. God is distinctly male, and all His angels are also distinctly male. His alleged son, Jesus Christ is a man, who apparently wanted little to do with women, including his own mother. And at least one of the early apostles was a vehement homophobe. So yes, the concept of God, at least the Christian one, is sexist.

Once again, the representation of God as male is a cultural and psychological accomodation. The angels are described by Christ as basically genderless (see Matthew 22:30).

The description of Christ as anti-female is not supported by the biblical record. In fact, Christ extended a much greater regard toward women than first-century Jewish culture considered proper. He spoke in public to an unmarried woman (John 4), accepted women as followers (Luke 8:2, 3), and even saved a woman from public execution (John . Jesus also provided for the continued care of His mother after He died (John 19:26, 27).

Also, I'm not familiar with which of the apostles was a "vehement homophobe." Which one was it, and where is this found in the biblical text?

[Wicked Pilot]

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

You have read the Bible have you not, Pastor?

[Pastor Andy]

Yes, I have...

Genesis 3:16 wrote:
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee

Principle of authority. Any social organization, regardless of how small (an individual family) or how large (the United States), has to have someone, or someones, in position to exercise authority to provide for safety, well-being, and order. God, out of His own counsel, chose to place the male as that figure in the family. If you'll examine other portions of the biblical text (most notably Ephesians 5:25, Colossians 3:19, and 1 Peter 3:7), you'll see that this places the husband in a place of greater responsibility and greater requirement.

Eph. 5:23-24 wrote:
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.... Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

See above. Paul is using the example of the love relationship that Christ and the Church share as the model of a husband-wife relationship. I wish you would have continued on to verse 25 (as I mentioned above), because it clearly demonstrates the responsibility of the husband in the relationship to "love his wife even as Christ loved the chuch and gave Himself up for her." Husbands are to sacrifice for their wives, even to the point of laying down their own lives (but how often do we see this mandate lived up to?).

1 Tim 2:11-12 wrote:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Paul is speaking to Timothy here in the context of public worship. A parallel passage is 1 Corinthians 14:33-35. Timothy was a young pastor, and in this passage, Paul is advising him about order in worship. Paul was saying that, in a public context, women should not be allowed to teach. As to the scope of this mandate (was Paul speaking to a specific situation in a specific church or giving a broad-blanket ban on all public ministry by women? I hold to the previous view...), there is much debate. But we also see that in other scriptures, ministry by women is carried out in all its various forms (Acts 2:17, 18; 18:26; 21:9)

I hope that my limited understanding will provide some clarity.

[Tosho]

The concept of God as expressed in the Bible is not an inherently sexist concept. An infinite being revealing itself to finite beings would be compelled to do so in terms and concepts that the finite could grasp. The use of male-gender pronouns in the biblical text is just a cultural and psychological accomodation to humanity's limitations

If I understand you, than your saying god called himself a he because of our mental limitations. Then why does hinduism, a religion much older than judaism adopt the beleif that god is distinctly male, female, both, and neither at the same time? this is the beleif I held when I was a deist.

[Wicked Pilot]

God, out of His own counsel, chose to place the male as that figure in the family.

OK, God says men in charge over women regardless of qualifications. In other words, God is sexist. Concession Accepted.

Paul is using the example of the love relationship that Christ and the Church share as the model of a husband-wife relationship.

Love but not equality you say. Concession Accepted.

Paul is speaking to Timothy here in the context of public worship. A parallel passage is 1 Corinthians 14:33-35... Paul was saying that, in a public context, women should not be allowed to teach

Ah, so women should not be allowed to teach, but men can. If that is not sexist, WHAT THE FUCK IS?!

I hope that my limited understanding will provide some clarity.

I understand all too clearly. You, Pastor Andy, have just shown me how your religion can be used to justify sexism. Tommorrow, can you teach us how to justify racism? How about genocide?

[Pastor Andy]

OK, God says men in charge over women regardless of qualifications. In other words, God is sexist. Concession Accepted.

Sexist? Would God's decision be sexist if He had chosen the woman to exercise authority instead of the man? If that be true, then I suppose that His decision would be "sexist."

Love but not equality you say. Concession Accepted.

Equality? What do you mean? The context of the passage is the exercise of authority in the home. Someone has to be the final arbiter, the tie-breaker, if you will. Each member of the household (and of society-at-large) has a role to fill. Just because each person doesn't fill the same role doesn't mean that there is a lack of "equality."

Also, check the references that I gave you. Women were clearly ministering within the first-century church (I gave you references that show women functioning as both teachers and prophets). A proportion of students believe that Paul was referencing a specific church and a specific incident, not a broad-blanket ban.

I understand all too clearly. You, Pastor Andy, have just shown me how your religion can be used to justify sexism. Tommorrow, can you teach us how to justify racism? How about genocide?

What's your definition of sexism? That one gender is preferred and privileged above the other? I fail to see that the biblical text supports that. Both genders have been given roles to fill; both vital and both necessary for the continuation of society. Racism and genocide? Not interested...

[Wicked Pilot]

Sexist? Would God's decision be sexist if He had chosen the woman to exercise authority instead of the man? If that be true, then I suppose that His decision would be "sexist."

Either way it would be sexist. When you judge someone based on their sex as opposed to their qualifications, you are being sexist. Most elementry school kids understand this, why don't you?

The context of the passage is the exercise of authority in the home. Someone has to be the final arbiter, the tie-breaker, if you will.

The husband and wife are a team of two, not a hundred man senate. When it comes to two people, whoever is the "tie breaker" has all authority. Accourding to God, that person if the husband, screw the bitches.

Each member of the household (and of society-at-large) has a role to fill. Just because each person doesn't fill the same role doesn't mean that there is a lack of "equality."

So you're one of those idiots that think women shouldn't try their hand at professions like engineers, doctors, lawyers, pilots, etc. Afterall, their role in the home is equal to that as a professional.

Also, check the references that I gave you. Women were clearly ministering within the first-century church (I gave you references that show women functioning as both teachers and prophets). A proportion of students believe that Paul was referencing a specific church and a specific incident, not a broad-blanket ban.

Are you fucking blind? I quoted a clearly sexist passage form the Bible for you, and all you do is give a bunch of horseshit about what other passages say, or what students say. Pick or choose: The Bible is sexist, or it is contradictory.

What's your definition of sexism? That one gender is preferred and privileged above the other?

Sexism: judging people based on their sex regardless of other more revelant qualifications. It can also mean saying that all of one sex act one way, and all of the other act another.

I fail to see that the biblical text supports that. Both genders have been given roles to fill; both vital and both necessary for the continuation of society.

I can't believe I have to point out the obvious with you, GIVING ROLES BASED SOLELY ON SEX IS SEXIST. Can I be any more direct, of is the wall of ignorance just too strong in you?

[Darth Wong]

Equality? What do you mean? The context of the passage is the exercise of authority in the home. Someone has to be the final arbiter, the tie-breaker, if you will.

Why? Where I come from, two people have to learn to come to decisions together, with neither person exerting unquestionable authority over the other in the event of an impasse. Small wonder fundies have the highest divorce rate in the sheepish admission of the Christian Barna Research study.

Each member of the household (and of society-at-large) has a role to fill. Just because each person doesn't fill the same role doesn't mean that there is a lack of "equality."

Just because someone's role is subservient to another doesn't mean there is a lack of "equality"? Do you realize that this exact same premise could have been used to justify black slavery 200 years ago?

Also, check the references that I gave you. Women were clearly ministering within the first-century church (I gave you references that show women functioning as both teachers and prophets). A proportion of students believe that Paul was referencing a specific church and a specific incident, not a broad-blanket ban.

It doesn't matter what a proportion of students choose to believe about their sexist belief system; it states its sexist demands very clearly. The fact that some churches did (and continue to) ignore portions of the Bible does not excuse the Bible.

What's your definition of sexism? That one gender is preferred and privileged above the other? I fail to see that the biblical text supports that.

You've admitted that the Bible says the man must have authority over the woman in the home. If you fail to see that this authority represents "privilege", then you are a blithering idiot.

Both genders have been given roles to fill; both vital and both necessary for the continuation of society.

Yet again, this justification for subservient roles could have easily been used by Southern plantation owners in the slave era, asshole.

Racism and genocide? Not interested...

The Biblical God certainly was. See the Canaanites, Midianites, and the Great Flood.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course the Biblical God is a sexist concept. Most people dismiss it as non-literal imagery, but the fact is that taken literally (as the fundies do), God looks like a male human, made Adam in his image, and then made Eve only because Adam needed a "helper". If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is.

Well, the Old Testament is. One could argue that the rather heavy Marianism of the Catholic Church is a holdover of Pagan Earth-Mother cults.

Remember the title they gave Mary at the Council of Ephesus:

Theotokos - "God-Bearer"

You cannot get more reverent than that.

[Sienthal]

Well, shouldn't a god be sexless? I mean, to take up an attribute of an entity that it created, which would give him essentially give it vestigial organs and hormones which would only hinder it in the long run.

A god, assuming there is one, would probably be without form, except in the case that it would want visit someone or something, in which case it might take a human shell. Still, why take something as flawed as a human? I'd go for a spider, or so. Being all powerful and such, I'll just project my thoughts to the masses before me,

[Shadow]

It makes no sense that that the christian god has a gender. He is supposedly perfect, altough this is contradicted. Male hormones would be limitation on God, so therefore he would not be perfect. Further, it makes no sense because he has no one to have sexual relations with, so there is no purpose to any gender qualities. It is obvious that the various authors of the bible were sexist, and wished to impose their views on others through the bible.

[Zoink]

I would diffentiate between these "concepts":

The concept of humans creating a mythical story about a male god and creation. (ie those that created the myth are sexist)

VS

The concept that if a male god exists, is he sexist.

VS

The concept that if a male god exists and the bible is accurate, is he sexist.

------

The first case is clearly sexist, by examples I won't repost.

In the other cases, God simply being male isn't sexist. God creating a male human, angel, or son isn't sexist. God creating a second gender for companionship isn't sexist. However, God saying that Eve must serve Adam (without giving the same requirement for Adam to serve Eve) is by definition, sexist.

[InnerBrat]

The question 'Is God a sexist concept' deals only with the first one - whether or not the concept is seixst, not God Himself (or Herself). I thought that was obvious.