Realising that God is actually niether male nor female and encompases both male and female.  Why do people tend to refer to God as Him?  Why not Her?\n\n Answers other than "because men wrote the books" please.
210035
Old habits die hard...
657838
The GOD is the same FORM as YOU are...........\n\nI will give you a simple explanation.............\n\nHave you ever thought GOD to be a dog or elephant or shark or a tree ! We humans think GOD as a human being only......isn't it ? Even a man will see GOD as a MAN and a woman will think GOD as a WOMAN.......true isn't it ? \n\nProbably a Dog will see his God to be a Dog only.........I tell you why this is so...........because no one has seen GOD and it exists only in our mind.........so we make a picture of GOD like ourself. \n\nI think GOD is nothing but a "Driving Power" that gives us inspiration to live ahead........
270887
Interesting how so many people quote a different part of the bible without dealing with the fact that there is a clear contradictino here.\n\nTHis guy posted a verse that says basically, ask and you shall receive. Not "I'll think about it", but you shall receive.  And you all quote verses saying "not so fast".  Well, which is it? Can we move mountains with faith? Only if it's for a good cause? What?
283502
This is just my opinion, but, I think people are losing the respect that He deserves.  There are more beliefs that use "the man upstairs" or "the big guy" things like that, than the actual word God. Therefore, I think that the reverence has been lost.  What a shame. Because He told us in the Bible that we are His, and He meant ALL of us.
200648
(resounding amen coming from a fellow believer)\nThat was beautiful sister, i really am so glad someone did this, anyway i really hope people can read this with out opininionated ideals and theology. God is God and who are we to define who he is. My point is we are so caught up in our selfishness and selfcenteredness, we reject proper biblical teaching. remember the enemy comes to steal, murder and destroy, but Christ came to redeem us.\nand again AMEN!!!!!!
601429
God though in reality has no sex prefers to refer himself as a He.\nAs God is spiritual and has no material body he requires no gender but the male gender take on the greater responsibility as they are given that role. God being the highest so God describes himself  with male attributes. Women are to be treated with great respect and dignity. The husbands though taking headship of the household treats his wife like he would himself. He respects his wife's opinions and being in marriage a husband and wife become one flesh. What a remarkable arrangement.\nThere is no sexism in heaven that is a worldy problem because people refuse to obey God so bring great pains to themselves.
412960
I wrote a paper about language used for God while I was in college, I'll just paste parts of it in here where it fits in between my thoughts now.\n\nGod being referred to as a man is a perfect example of the overuse of a metaphor. the metaphor is supposed to bring out certain feelings and allow the reader to relate better to the subject at hand. the overuse of a metaphor obviously proves to have problems, when in this case, referring to God as a woman somehow tends to turn heads.\n\nit seems everyone is hitting it with saying that God is neither male nor female. biblically, there are referrences to giving God both male and female characteristics, as well as comparisons to animals and inanimate objects. God is all things. whoever quoted the I Am scripture got it right.\n\nmale references:\n\n"Along with God as a father, there are other male images for God in the Bible. God is referred to as a shepherd in Psalm 23 and Ezekiel 34 (103). God is referred to as “. . . LORD Most High, the great King over all the earth” in Psalm 47:2 and a judge and king in Psalm 96:10 (103-104). God is portrayed to have great strength and courage. In Psalm 24:8, God is referenced as being a warrior. It says, “Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.”"\n\nfemale references:\n\n"God is also referred to in feminine aspects. In Isaiah 49:15, God is given the characteristics of a nursing mother. Isaiah 66:13, states that “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem” (104). God is given the characteristics of a midwife in Psalm 22:9-10 and gives birth in Deuteronomy 32:18 and Isaiah 42:14. Characteristics of women by giving birth can also be found in John 3, when God gave his “only begotten son.”"\n\nanimal references:\n\n"God is also equated with animals throughout the Old and New Testaments. In Matthew 23, as well as Luke 13, God is spoken of as a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings. In Deuteronomy 32 God is referenced to be a mother eagle, and then again a few animal references are made in Hosea 13:7-8. It states, “So I will come upon them like a lion, like a leopard I will lurk by the path. Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and rip them open. Like a lion I will devour them; a wild animal will tear them apart” (98)."\n\ninanimate object references:\n\n"Throughout the Bible God is also referenced as inanimate objects. In Deuteronomy 4:24, God is “a consuming fire” and in Psalm 84 God is “a sun and shield” (98). In Deuteronomy 32, God is a rock. However, “‘Rock’ applied to God implies a set of qualities, particularly ones that focus on stability and reliability, that rose in the consciousness of the believing community at a particular time” (102)."\n\nit is also important to note that God's name, which is "’ehyeh ‘asher ‘ehyeh," or roughly YHWH is found over 6,000 times in the old testament. it is roughly and most often translated as "I am (who I am)," and is a form of "to be." due to the fact that jews regarded God's name as sacred and should never have been spoken, they often substituted YHWH with "Adonai" (which is "kyrios" in greek and "dominus" in latin). all of those forms are masculine and translate as "lord." lord obviously has masculine, dominant conotations. since all these forms are masculine, the masculine idea of God was pushed over God's name. God is often also referred to as "elohim" which has no gender. the shortened, "eloh," however is feminine and means goddess, so the addition of "im" at the end could make the translation of the word merely mean, “god,” “gods,” “goddess,” or “diety.”\n\nwhoever stated that the term for spirit was ruah and was feminine was also correct. it is important to note that the spiri
381845
I believe there is a Goddess and a God. Everything in nature requires balance, so why would the same not be true of God?\n\nPlus, in the OT, when God talks about himself, the original Hebrew text actually in the female form, not male.
465367
Dear ES,\n\nI agree with you and I enjoy reading it and giving away copies of the Bible.\n\nLong before I read the Bible from cover-to-cover I intended to re-write the Bible and take out all of the sexist language.  What a joke that was!  When I finally read it I didn't change it but it sure did change me!\n\nOne wonderful thing I noticed was that I had the feeling that it was written directly to me, even though I know it was written long before I was born.  It reminds me of looking at a photograph when it seems as though the subject is looking right back at you.\n\nEven though there have been several translations of the Bible they all say just about the same thing.  However I've seen a few that are not divinely inspired and there is no sense of the Living Word of God.\n\nYes, it is fascinating to look at the prophecies and realize that Jesus was the only person who ever had his biography written before He was born!
63000
What an odd question. I mean the question iteslf is legitimate, but it's very oddly phrased.\n\nI don't understand how the term doctor is gender specific and why the example of manning a spaceship?\n\nBut as an answer, to the first question at any rate, no. Language is not sexist by definition, unless you're using a very strange definition of language. \n\nSo to the second question, which I have a bunch of other issues with. English doesn't favour men at all. Women are the ones who insist on new words when they become actors, waiters, aviators, etc. Don't even start me on the cretinism of the term bachelorette (which is just a moronym for spinster).
348111
Oh Lord, I have sooooooo much to say about this one.  Firstly, I had gender reassignment at 23, and although I was never a 'boy' in the real meaning of the term, I have lived life on both sides of the gender spectrum.  Thus, I have a somewhat unique perspective on gender.\n\nFirstly, there is really no such thing as 'boy' toys and 'girl' toys, or 'boy' colours and 'girls' colours, etc.  Colours are colours, period.  Toys are toys, period.  It just so happens that society has placed these labels on inanimate objects and expects the genders to conform to these labels.  It is true that, yes, dolls are marketed towards little girls.  Why?  Because companies want to play on the fact that little girls are (supposedly) more nurturing that little boys.  When in most cases this may be true, it is not 100% accurate.\n\nSecondly, I have no idea why parents get so wrapped up in this issue.  I know of a man who is married to a woman who has taken dance classes of all sorts (especially ballet) throughout all of her childhood, and she is very good!  They have a son.  One day he said "I'm sure there are many dads out there who would be fine with their son wearing tights and dancing ballet, but I'm not one of them."  My first thought was "Oh my god!  What if your son has inherited his mother's abilities to dance, and because of your sexist attitude, you would stop him from doing that.  He may be the world's next great male dancer!"  I am always flabbergasted (is that word even used anymore?) by parents who would limit their child's natural, God-given talents, simply because of a dumb sexist rule.\n\nOkay, my next point.  First off, being Christian, homosexuality is (supposed to be) against my faith.  I, however, choose not to judge, because it is a clear command in the Bible.  And, being transgendered, I'm hardly in a position to do so.  So, what if you did allow your son to have a broom and an iron as a toy when he's young and he did grow up to be gay.  So what?  Is it the broom and the iron's fault?  I highly doubt it.  For those who believe that homosexuality is an in-born trait, his choice of toys (or your choices for him) aren't going to make any different.  For those who believe homosexuals are made, then I guess you would be to blame for 'being an absent father' and your wife would be to blame for 'being an overly attached mother'.  Basically it boils down to: if he is, he is. . .if he isn't, he isn't.  Love him anyway.  He is your son.  You're supposed to love him no matter what.\n\nAnd again, yet another point.  You are right in saying that he will need the abilities of cleaning and ironing, etc. in order to survive.  So many young men haven't the slightest clue what to do about these chores when they're out on their own, because mom always did it for them.  In a world where both parents are usually working outside of the home (and I'm not really in favour of that, but I understand why), men should take a full 50% of the load of responsibility at home.  Women today are overworked because not only are they working 40 hours a week, they're also putting in at least that much at home.  I highly admire the husband who will help his wife out at home, because it is fair and right.  No longer are the days when the wife stays at home and cooks and cleans, and raises the kids, while the husband brings home the $$.  I have been blessed with a wonderful husband who does all of those things, and I am very greatful to have him.  Not that it was because his mother taught him those things.  It was because he had a desire to learn to do them, because he didn't feel it right that I should do all the work when I've just come home from a long day at work myself.  In fact, when he went through a period of unemployment, I didn't have to lift a finger at home, except to cook (my hubby isn't the greatest
655257
God moves in mysterious ways..................!\n\nWhy did not he include a chapter "prophecies", "question and answers from followers" etc..\n\nAnd no little picture with his bibliography at the back ! really disappointing ! \n\nAnd why did he give away his author's rights ??
464980
Allah, God, Yahweh (insert your preferred name for God here) is way more than male or female.  God is ineffable.  God transcends human gender.  \n\nThis comes from the patriarchal societies that Judaism was born in, which continued in Christian and Muslim times when those religions started as well. Back then, men had all the power and women had very little.\n\nAlso, Judaism was one of the first religions not to have a god and a goddess, which was a major departure.  Since Christianity and Islam are offshoots of Judaism, the goddess was left behind as well.\n\nGod is simply God, no matter what your personal name for God is.  A being who made the whole universe isn't male or female, but much, much more.\n\nCheers, K
151970
good question.  i had never thought about this before.  any operation would be going against the will of god, wouldn't it, starcameo?  if god had intended the person to be either male or female, god would have made them as such, right?  \n\njohn_killebrew: please explain how being self-aware proves the existence of god.
567385
First question...I am a very feminist "Christian" and I believe that God is both, since there is both male and female...if all of us are created in God's image, then women are also...hence the both sexes present.\nSecond question...to most people that have studied the Bible, original sin IS NOT Eve's fault. It is the fault of Adam. He lied to Eve about what God had said about the Tree of Knowledge and when it came time to "confess" Adam blamed Eve for everything and also (and I'm paraphrasing here) called God an idiot for making her. Also according to Jewish Law and Myth, a man is always held accountable for a womans actions.\nThird question...there is a Bible called the Jeromes Bible, it was translated by St. Jerome and he took the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew text word for word in the translation...the reason I bring that translation up is because women are not as "negatively" portraited as in some other translations. Sure you still have Jezebel, Deliha, and all those other honeys...but when women are discussed, it is not as "irrational" as some other translations.\nWhat you have to remember is that we don't honestly know what is in the original text...the Bible has become corrupted by man and HIS own dogma and ideology. The most important thing about faith is to know what you believe in and to use the bible as a guide...not as faith itself. \nGod does not hate women, nor is He indifferent to them. He made as all, both sexes, equal...Eve was taken from Adams rib, not from his feet to be above him, or from his feet to be below him; but from his rib, to be equal to him. That is something we all must remember.
537494
Yeah, there is a scripture that says something like "I am a jealous God" (not exact quote) and I have no idea what exactly it was referring to, but it was not our supreme being saying he was jealous.  Geez Louise!  Whomever wrote that surely wasn't quoting God.  God is all love and I would imagine in a constant state of bliss.  Can you really imagine him being angry or jealous.   I don't care what Sunday School teaches, that's just silly!
207732
Um...  not sure if this is helpful, but there are repeated references to God, however there are still references to fate and wyrd, remnants of the old anglo-saxon relgion.  This is important because it indicates that the culture is in a shift between the two religions and/or that the story dates from the pre-christian era, and has simply been retold for christian audiences.