Human existence: the gender of God

waybread said:

Because most public women's restrooms have stalls with locking doors on them, I could probably handle it. People in the public part of the restroom are normally fully clothed and just washing their hands. I assume this person really identified as female.

Click to expand...

I have noticed a lot of public washrooms are changing the signs to denote any sex can used any stall. Granted it is only for single stall use.

For stadiums, and larger public venues it will be more difficult. As a woman, I am uncomfortable with men being free to use the women's washroom if they wear women's garments. The problem isn't when the stadium, or large venue is busy. The problem would be when it is not. It would be a great place to stalk, isolated large buildings. A lot of warehouses/offices are requiring you to buzz in, like at an apartment now. There have been rapists getting into them, and assaulting workers who are alone in the office.

If one rape/assault happens to a person it is one too many for the public safety to allow. We can film outside the washroom, but inside is invasive to our rights too.

In Vancouver their is a person that is suing small establishments, because the women turn down waxing him, down there. Him is transgender. Large and somewhat aggressive(he lost in court and has filed against other establishments again), uses a wheelchair. So far the courts say, that no one should be forced to work on anyone that they are not comfortable working on.

Sounds like a large job opportunity for the transgender person, wide open clientele, with no where to go. (Too bad he wasn't inspired enough to start a business, instead of suing others for his own monetary gain.

passiflora said:

What were they called, can you remember? There are still men’s groups that believe in the humanity of women. But you don’t really read about them much. My take is any group more focused on the work and experience of liberation than hyping themselves isn’t easy to read about.

Click to expand...

The Men's Movement I think.

passiflora said:

What were they called, can you remember? There are still men’s groups that believe in the humanity of women. But you don’t really read about them much. My take is any group more focused on the work and experience of liberation than hyping themselves isn’t easy to read about.

Click to expand...

I believe, in equality. For all. My biggest problem with groups is that they are divisive.

We all have human rights. That should cover it.

As we go to each small sector, it demeans the main right.

Human rights for all.

(I agree, with, it becomes difficult to read.)

Exodus 34
14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

Interesting, that his name is Jealous.

passiflora said:

The way the US Constitution has it, everyone has some kind of human rights. Then there are groups whose rights tend to be eroded before those of others, just because people have cruel and discriminatory tendencies. So because we people are terrible we have to especially look after the rights of people in those groups, until the time we don’t need to anymore. That time hasn’t come yet.

Click to expand...

yeah, unfortunately, we actually need to have a group that says handicapped people should have access to anything. You would think that it would just be obvious.

passiflora said:

Yes. And the way rights become some kind of legalistic afterthought rather than a design feature, you’d think people actually were trying to spark conflict than solve problems. The way sloping curbs at intersections are designed with raised bumps to slow wheelchairs will trip any woman in heels, but that is a serious problem of imagination, that such a solution is all someone could come up with. We follow the letter of the law rather than the spirit, out of maybe mental laziness?

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of that, I have been totally happy with the sloped curbs. Easier on tires rubbing them. Access for the handicapped. Creating handicapped though for the heeled shoe would be a serious problem. Wow, so much for solutions.

petosiris said:

I believe in the plain meaning of scriptures, ''wisdom'' in Proverbs 8 or the fourth beast of Daniel is clearly not literal, but allegorical. I don't claim I understand God as he understands me, but I do think I understand from Deut. 6:4 that he is one and that he has a name, and that he is a jealous God (Ex. 20:5) and that he doesn't want us to even mention other gods (Ex. 23:13).

Click to expand...

This is hard to fathom, when the Bible itself mentions foreign gods by name, such as Moloch and Baal.

petosiris said:

I know this much. I've also heard and read of Karaite Jews, have you?

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism Another group (like Reform Jews) who do not believe the Talmud is binding.

think I've shown that wisdom is a personification (not another creator - Is. 42:5), that singular masculine pronouns and names in the sacred scriptures are irrevocable, that Paul believed there were differences in godly living for Jews, Gentiles, slaves, freemen, men and women, that I established my ''doctrinal credentials'', and that I am not an idol worshipper even according to your teachers (yes, I do not benefit from idolatry either). I think that the last two methods were an interesting way of making your point.

It is a rebellion against God who doesn't think his words are optional - ''Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.'' - hear the prophet of Deut. 18:18-19 and listen to him!

Click to expand...

Well, you'd sure have many prominent theologians disagreeing with you.

Again, you have to look at how the Hebrew (+Greek, Aramaic) language is constructed. Hebrew doesn't have a gender-neutral word for "you." The word "at" is masculine and "ata" is feminine. Then Hebrew "you" is also different in the singular and plural, unlike in English. "Aten" is the plural feminine, and "atem" is the plural masculine. The convention for a mixed group is to use the masculine form of "you."

This gender distinction is also true of the Hebrew words for "they."

Surely you're not suggesting that because the OT uses the Hebrew masculine words for "you"-- that none of its code of ethics is binding upon women. That's the slippery slope of your rigid gender division.

Orthodox Judaism does prescribe rigid gender roles for men and women, but Christianity presumably did away with them.

Wisdom (Sophia, Hebrew= Hochma) of Proverbs in the OT is written up in the feminine.

Who do you think my "teachers" are?

I am not a Christian, so I don't take the words of Paul and even Jesus as unbreakable rules. As a lapsed Jew, I don't take most of what's in the Jewish deposit of faith as obligatory. I think it's most important to live an ethical life, not to be a rigid doctrinarian.

You might be interested in exploring the different approaches to Bible study. The literary study of the Bible is probably the one I find most meaningful.

The main messages of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are about following a code of ethics, and developing a personal relationship with one's God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite_Judaism Another group (like Reform Jews) who do not believe the Talmud is binding.

Click to expand...

Orthodox Judaism does prescribe rigid gender roles for men and women, but Christianity presumably did away with them.

Click to expand...

It looks to me like no so-called religion is a single monolithic thing to make such sweeping generalizations as you do.

waybread said:

This is hard to fathom, when the Bible itself mentions foreign gods by name, such as Moloch and Baal.

Click to expand...

You probably are aware that names in Jewish thought are more than simply the correct pronunciation of something, but also the associated reputation with it. So to name a foreign god with intention to elevate it (as the idolaters do) is sinful, but to name a foreign god with intention to shame or destroy it (as the early Christians did of the Greco-Roman deities) is righteous, in that case you are naming a false god with the intention to present it as false. Your teachers are indeed contradicting themselves with the scriptures when they think it means to remove a letter, rather than to defame their names.

Westerners don't take the sin of idolatry as serious today, but imagine living in the pagan Roman Empire!

Exodus 34
14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

Interesting, that his name is Jealous.

Click to expand...

His name and character are the same. God, besides jealous, is also a consuming fire. Now that is something to think about.

petosiris said:

It looks to me like no so-called religion is a single monolithic thing to make such sweeping generalizations as you do.

Click to expand...

What do you mean?

petosiris said:

You probably are aware that names in Jewish thought are more than simply the correct pronunciation of something, but also the associated reputation with it. So to name a foreign god with intention to elevate it (as the idolaters do) is sinful, but to name a foreign god with intention to shame or destroy it (as the early Christians did of the Greco-Roman deities) is righteous, in that case you are naming a false god with the intention to present it as false. Your teachers are indeed contradicting themselves with the scriptures when they think it means to remove a letter, rather than to defame their names.

Westerners don't take the sin of idolatry as serious today, but imagine living in the pagan Roman Empire!



His name and character are the same. God, besides jealous, is also a consuming fire. Now that is something to think about.

Click to expand...

Petosiris, you are really going to have to disaggregate the different denominations of Judaism. They don't all practice and believe the same thing. Part of the reason is historical. Even in ancient times many Jews lived in the diaspora, and the widely separated communities had limited communication with one another. A major division is between the Jews of northern Europe (Ashkenazi) and the Near East (Sephardi) but there are other insular communities besides. Then beginning with the Enlightenment, some Jews wanted to modernize their faith. There was no figurehead like the pope to centralize authority.

The idea of a "jealous" God is basically an insistence on the first commandment.

If you study the Bible from a more historical-literary perspective, you will note that God's promise to the Jews for observance is not an afterlife in heaven. As fitted a pastoral-agricultural people, he promised rain in the proper season and a good harvest. Breaking the commandments could incur warfare and drought. The Creator, among other attributes, is a God of weather.

To disobey the first commandment and worship other gods was seen as jeopardizing the environmental system upon which life depended. Baal was the Canaanite god of weather and rainfall, and its interesting that Baal was a serious competitor in ancient times with God for the Jews' observance.

So the "jealous" God has to be understood in context.

My previous post on Hebrew as a gendered language goes beyond mere pronunciation. In English, we don't confuse "he" and "she," or "him" and "her." These distinctions are analogous to the ways in which Hebrew has different forms of "you" separated by gender. It's more like if we said, "you male," "you female," or "you men" vs. "you women."

I still have no idea whom you think my teachers are. Seriously. I'm curious.

Astrologically, the God of the fierce desert Hebrews was Mars. Then, after comfortably ensconced in their own country, it took on Jupiterian characteristics. So, this fits the combination of the sidereal Age of Aries concurrent with the tropical Age of Sagittarius, with the tropical Age coming in later than the sidereal.

The later Hebrew version of God contributed greatly to the characteristics of the Greek "King of the gods", Zeus.

This, of course, is an archetypal analysis, not a religious one.

david starling said:

The later Hebrew version of God contributed greatly to the characteristics of the Greek "King of the gods", Zeus.

This, of course, is an archetypal analysis, not a religious one.

Click to expand...

It is a good example of why the sin of idolatry is almost never one by equality, but by association. In idolatrous religions, there is usually one supreme god, but he also has associates. Paul used a verse from a hymn to Zeus (by Aratus at least) in Acts 17 (''we are his children'') when he preached in Athens, and applied it to the God of Israel, the only true God of Jesus - John 17:3.

Opal said:

Exodus 34
14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God

Interesting, that his name is Jealous.

Click to expand...

NOW that's' funny!!



Ironic how "god" always has man's (and women) characteristics as human as they are. Jealous was a good start.

david starling said:

The later Hebrew version of God contributed greatly to the characteristics of the Greek "King of the gods", Zeus.

This, of course, is an archetypal analysis, not a religious one.

Click to expand...

"God" of thunder & lightening correct? Wonder what the "god" of Mt. Sinai was as an equivalent? Fire & Brimstone? Perhaps. "Submit or else"

Zeus - Wikipedia

https://[B]en.wikipedia.org[/B]/wiki/Zeushttps://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZTSB&pc=MOZI&q=was+zeus+the+god+of+thunder?#

Zeus is the sky and thunder god in ancient Greek religion, who rules as king of the gods of Mount Olympus. His name is cognate with the first element of his Roman equivalent Jupiter. His mythologies and powers are similar, though not identical, to those of Indo-European deities such as Jupiter, Perkūnas, Perun, Indra and Thor.

david starling said:

Astrologically, the God of the fierce desert Hebrews was Mars. Then, after comfortably ensconced in their own country, it took on Jupiterian characteristics. So, this fits the combination of the sidereal Age of Aries concurrent with the tropical Age of Sagittarius, with the tropical Age coming in later than the sidereal.

Click to expand...

David, there is no evidence for this. The Romans actually thought the Jewish God was Saturn, because they couldn't imagine an invisible god with no theogony attached to him.

waybread said:

David, there is no evidence for this. The Romans actually thought the Jewish God was Saturn, because they couldn't imagine an invisible god with no theogony attached to him.

Click to expand...

Every source I've read credits the Hebrew God as a major influence on Zeus, not Kronos. The Roman version, Jupiter, not Saturn, was considered by the early Church as an imitation of the Hebrew God as the Father. The Syrian Greeks attempted to force the Judeans to admit that their One God was, in fact, a version of Zeus. This led to the Chanukah celebration.

The Romans chose the 7th astrological planet for their 7th calendar weekday because Saturn was the god of accidents, and they preferred not to work on Saturn's day. They got the IDEA for a day of rest from the Hebrew Sabbath on the 7th Day, but never equated the Hebrew God with their god Saturn.

They couldn't understand the God of Israel until the outpouring of the holy spirit on the apostles and their subsequent preaching. And I think many here are still in that age of darkness, being deceived and deceiving others.