Why do people think that God is a man?

If god is the ultimate state of existence
in the universe, then why would god be
a man?

If God created the universe, then why
would God be a man?

Why would God even be a human at all?

-Dan

--------------------------------------
All that I'm asking is for a simple
answer to a simple question...

...actually, I know the answer. I'm just
seeing how many people are going to
reply.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, the Jewish tradition explicitly states that God does not have a defined form, nor can it be classified using earthly concepts. Christians broke with that tradition in declaring Christ to be the embodiment of God, and ever since they have been using the concept of the human, male Son to also depict the Father and the Holy Ghost. IMHO, portraying or even imagining their God as a man is just another form of idol worship, making Christians into first-grade hypocrites.

Me, I don't even believe in God, abstract or concrete, to begin with. Such belief gives only an illusion of resolution; in actuality it raises more questions than it answers.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

pretty much,
that's what I've been stating all along:
That God is not a man.
My posting was to find out the reasons
why people thought so.

-Dan

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dan, I told you the answer last night you idiot! God is reffered to a man only because people are reffering to the physical self of God which is jesus, not the Non Physical God. If people were reffering to the non Physical God, then they would can it, "IT" instead of "HE"

-Rob

 

Normally I would say people think God is male because they have no imagination. But I didn't drop out of college for nothing:

Several traditions have mythic stories regarding a transition of power from the goddess to the god. In addition to the abysmal "Adam and Eve" tale, I recall that Jomo Kenyatta, in "Facing Mount Kenya" recounted in myth how the men of African tribal societies seized power after the women, who had previously held power, became decadent and despotic.

More realistically, I read a theory in an Anthropology textbook (Anth 173, not that deep a class) that there is a correspondence between the knowledge of sexual reproduction and the rise of the male pantheon. Australian tribes cited in old journals held a tradition that the wind brought women children, and these specific tribes worshipped fertility goddesses.

There's something there, I think. Religion has always held some political significance. Ancient empires often viewed their rulers as divine entities. The Roman popes could unseat monarchs, and vice versa in Henry's Church of England. Manifest Destiny, a truly American heritage, drew its validity from Christian perspective. In its earliest form, I think the link between superstition--or religion--and authority measured value in species propagation. Men worshipped women because they held the key to life. When men realized they were a necessary part of the life equation . . . well, their significance just notched up one or two points, eh?

Once the creaton dichotomy was reconciled, the focus could become more immediate, and leaders derived authority from lack of resistance. The men ran the societies, hence the gods were born in their creators' images.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

 

And god went to say:
"Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness"

 

That's just plain B.S.
God is not a man, end of story.

-Dan

 

Oh Xeno, you are truly wise in the ways of the world. "I know the answer, but I want to see how many of you do". You must be very learned indeed. Are you God by any chance or perhaps you have met? I would certainly like you two to meet. I am asking because of the great knowledge and respect you have for all things, especially people who are obviously less old than you and more naive.

I couldn't care less what you think since I have no desire to live for your approval.

Is it surprising that throughout the Bible, Koran and other monotheist texts that when the word "HE" refers to GOD then silly little people, uninitiated in the path of Xeno and knowledge of all ways, think ooh, that must mean He and so must mean God. He - God, God - He.....mmmmmm I wonder. God in His wisdom, He created man in His own image.....mmmm indeed.

God cannot have a sex because pure energy on the 10th dimension does not allow genitals. Viz a viz, God is a cooked asexual lettuce, without sex and without form. Case closed. Ofcourse. How simple...

If the monotheist religous texts refer to He they must surely have ALL made a mistake. I am sorry, but where does it state that God is asexual and for that matter in the 10th dimension possibly to the left of the star trek videos and your acne treatment?

------------------
You know it to be so

 

Tiassa,
Forgive me but which hollywood film was that? I take it you were referring to Henry VII? He (an yes Xeno, He was a He) did not dethrone a pope.

However, I agree organised religion equates political power. Especially in the backwards usa.

------------------
You know it to be so

 

Matt,

I cannot understand how you can picture
God to be a man.

let me explain:
----------------------------------------
Dang it, the theory of everything has
come along. Now i'll have to work
even harder to convince people.

Anyway, if you want to go think that
God is a man, go ahead. I'm not going
to say anything. Those are your views.
Seeing God is a mere form of perception.
Sight and perception are things that
are within the boundaries of the
physical, thus they are 3rd dimensional.
I'm sorry Matt, but you are one among
many people that think that way.

I do not try to perceive god. I attempt
to know God and what God is; that
itself is what christians are supposed
to do.

As for the theory of everything, I
find it hard to believe. I find it hard
to believe that strings (parallels,
or whatever they are) make up dimensions
which make up the universe. it is
interesting, but just because it is
doesn't mean its true. Some of it
is true in some sense, but I find
many holes in it.

In the theory, it is stated that God
exists in the 10th dimension as a
being of pure energy. I agree in
somewhat to that statement, but have
to disagree on other terms.

God is a being of Pure essence,
not [/b]pure energy[/b].
In 4th dimension thinking, God is
something that exists in a higher
dimension that the one we are in now,
but not in the 10th dimension.

God is the State of Infinity.
Now, ask yourself this. What is the
state of infinity???
Don't know?
Let me shed some light on that.
God is another definition for the
state of infinity. Infinity is the
ultimate state of existence in the
universe. To be in infinity is to exist
in all realities, all dimensions, all
time, all space, and as everything
that is, has been, and will soon come
to be.
By saying that God is a being, you
are only classifying God as an object;
that itself is a state lower than
infinity and that is one reason why
I say the theory of everything is somewhat
flawed and self-centered around the
3rd dimension.

Actually, let me correct myself. The
theory of everything is 4th dimension
thinking, not 3rd.

-Dan

 

So let us recap...Dimensions 1-10 are what exactly?

Dimensions 1-4: Say, a small glass of sherry or a tipple of wine after sunday lunch?

Dimensions 5-7: 5-9 beers or 2-3 joints?

Dimension 10: Hey look, I can spell a 3 syllable word word aren't I the clever one. Let me show it off by repeating it over and over and over and over and over and over.......again hey mum, want to see?


Oh, sorry. That must 8th dimensional thinking: person, place, time, space and talking complete arse.

I do understand you really I do. Perhaps I can prescribe you something.

------------------
You know it to be so

 

Xeno, just a few little things:

the string theory says absolutely nothing about God. Not to mention that it is only one of a possible infinity of GUTs, and most probably is not the final one anyway. As for the "10th dimension" -- it arises only out of a supersymmetry hypothesis which might even be false (seeing how it takes its root in the Standard Model, to begin with).

And all this treating time as if it was a dimension sounds flaky. Sure, we can picture ourselves as 'moving forward' along time, but calling time a dimension sounds like much more of a mathematical convenience than a true depiction. For example, all rivers flow downstream -- but 'downstream' is not a dimension; it is merely a direction. You can't travel back and forth in 'downstream'. So what makes anyone think one can travel back and forth in time? (Or, in technospeak, travel back and forth in entropy?)

Timetravel was sort of legitimized with Einstein's relativity -- but especially from a modern viewpoint it is clear that relativity theories are incomplete. So all this talk about time being a 'dimension' sounds increasingly like hogwash to me. Which, of course, would also demolish the concept of an entity existing 'simultaneously' in all time. (Sorry!)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

Xeno,
You have proven one thing here - You know f**k all about the bible, the holy scriptures which is inspired by god, so therefore how can you preach what you know nothing about. I suggest you read the book and rethink your answers.
I have given you the benefit of the doubt and all I can say is that you are not the intellect I perceived you to be, you are just another freak led by your own misgivings and you have no answers worthy of any considerstion.

 

Matt D--

I'm seeking where in my post I cited a Hollywood film. I'm afraid I don't understand that part of your reply.

As to Henry, I'm referring to the mechanism within the Anglican Church which allows the Crown to appoint and remove the Bishop of Canterbury.

That help any?

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

 

Boris,
Jesus, as the Son of God led the Christians, or followers of Christ.
The Jews refused to believe he was the Messiah, just a great prophet - so are to this day awaiting the arrival of their Messiah. Christians work on the Holy Trinity,..the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Christians have to believe that God is in the form of a human because "we were made in his likeness". If they didn't, it would confuse things greatly..how can you say Jesus is the Son of Man but God didn't make us in his likeness....you get the picture. As to idolizing God because he is depicted as being in the form of a Man, wasn't the second Commandment about not making an idol in the form of anything... meaning a statue of the Rain God or Sun God or God of Fertility etc. etc.?? To worship God as you may see him in your mind may therefore not be Idolitory or hypocritical. These are not facts, I'm just trying to gain a better insight about it all without upsetting anyone.
Xeno,
God isn't a man, correct!- He is God. But what does God look like? What form is this force, or being, or substance in? According to the Man, Himself, He looks alot like the people here he created.

Kind Regards,
dave.

 

General Hurrss,

I do no some bit of the bible, but not
as much as you probably do. The bible
has many good points and important
things that should never be overlooked.

Basically the story of genesis goes
like this:
In the beginning, God created the
earth and all living things on it.
God said let there be light, and ther
was and God said let there be life
and there was. God created the first
man, who came to be called Adam and
from him came Eve, the first women.
Together, they lived in the garden
of Eden all happy and healthy.
Time passed and they commited their
first sin by temptation of the devil
and since they were no longer pure,
they were cast out of the garden.
From there on, they lived out there
lives and created the entire human
race.
Am I right, or am I wrong.
Another thing: where does it state in
the bible that God walked among us
and talked to us. I believe that you
are referring to Jesus Christ. This
is true is it not? When people say
that God is a man, or refer to "he,"
they are refering to Jesus.

-Dan

 

Boris,

My perception of this superstring theory
is probably wacked here. My skepticism
towards the theory was brought on
by someone who had stated it in his
own views in a topic called
"the connection between science and
god (or religion; something like that).
Please write up the theory on here
since the impression I had was that
it had holes to some extend. Even
Tuskin who is wise sees it as something
that has holes.
About God: Why the 10th dimension?
Why must God exist in the 10th dimension?
What of the other ones between the
4th and 10th - are they there to fill
a gap. I saw no discription given at
all to describe their pure significance.
Tuskin probably has some good points
to conterdict the theory. However,
he's busy with other things so it'll
probably be a while until he gets back
on here if he ever does. Another thing
is that he went by the name of
Pisk on here. He wrote up
a skeptic post on aliens that no one
so far has disproven in any form or
any way.
I'll end my arguments on the matter of
the theory here.

As for time, I believe it to be an
illusion. In reality, time is only
a measurement, brought on by human
conscience thinking and human memory.

-Dan

 

Dave,

God is beyond infinity; beyond anything
we can comprehend or muster to think
of. God exists outside the universe,
so is impossible for us to understand
what God really has. If a form of
God exists within that which has
been created, then it is only an image;
a false representive of that which
is. Infinity is the ultimate state of
existence within the boundaries of
the universe. That would mean that if
God is beyond infinity, God cannot
be infinity.

------------------------------------------
So far, I this is my conclusion on the
levels of existence there are:

1) The 3rd dimension:
This may be the beginning of
our states of existence, or
a state beyond that which we
were last in.

2) The 4th dimension:
This is just a generalization,
but I like to think of this
state as not one, but many;
all states of existence that
come after the physical.

3) The 5th dimension:
This is the state of infinity;
a state that which we will
never truly reach.

4) The existence of God
Whatever lays beyond Infinity
is where God is.
I would call this the 6th
dimension, but dimensions are
things that exist within the
universe.

-Dan

 

Dave:

What makes it so hard to imagine that we (humans) in fact look nothing like God (if it exists)? Or are you a Bible literalist and a fanatic to boot, and would go so far as to declare every last comma of the book to be literally God's writing?

Here's a few little dilemmas for the literalists. You see, we humans vary greatly in appearance. So which particular race is it that most closely resembles God? But if you are not racist, or sexist, or ageist, you must state that all humanity roughly resembles God. However, such a claim takes away the clarity of "God's image" -- since now God must look like a raceless, ageless, genderless, average, faceless, featureless humanoid. But then if you are going to abstract this far, you might as well include the rest of the ape species into the "God's image" umbrella. Which would incidentally also include the human precursors such as Neanderthals and Australopithecines.

Now, from geological record and evolutionary science, it is clear as day that neither the earth, nor its inhabitant species, were created overnight. Rather, they emerged gradually, and this transmutation process is ongoing even now. Which makes one wonder why the particular present human form is the one that most resembles God. In a few million years, our descendants will look nothing like us (and probably will not be entirely biological) -- but they will certainly be more advanced, intellectually and 'spiritually' alike. Would they have transcended God in their image?

So, perhaps the "God's image" clause is allegorical, and has nothing to do with the outward appearance or body factor, but with the 'soul' that inhabits the body. (I don't believe in souls, by the way, but I am donning the mask of a believer for the sake of this argument.) Modern science has equated the soul to the brain, however, and has been able to analyze the 'mind' into components. Which puts a funny spin on the "God's image" dilemma: just what components of the human mind are more God-like than the analogous components of the mind of a chimpanzee? And even more audaciously, one might suppose that other intelligent life exists in the universe which evolved independently and does not share our biochemistry or body factors, and has a mind completely unlike human. The various minds that would exist could be as different as a modern jet is from a flying bird, and yet share the same fundamental function (thought, perception, consciousness -- just as the bird and the jet share the ability to fly).

So, in light of a modern, wider perspective on the universe, just what does it mean for humans to be made in "God's image"? Could such a claim stem not from a divine source, but from a human sage, who undertook a lofty goal of trying to make his fellows respect each other a little more?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

Xeno,

Lay off a bit on dimensions, ok it sounds pretty cool but you can't just go about and place what ever meaning to it that you want. You are 15 you say so that makes you what, a freshman ? You should have had some Trigonomitry by now, haven't they teached you that the triagles that you studied are two dimensional figures ? With a length and a heigth ? You should have seen the Cartesian axes to coördinate the entire plane, these make use of two orthogonal vectors who are the unit vectors of the plane. If you put an other vector orthogonal on top of these, it would be orthogonal on your paper, you have an additional dimension. A fourth vector, orthogonal on the previous three adds a fourth dimension and so on. The problem is that we have a hard time imagining a vector standing orthognal to three other orthogonal vectors at the same time. Mathematically there is no problem at all to visualise it and make calculations with it : suppose A,B and C are orthogonal meaning : A.B = 0, A.C= 0 and B.C=0 then we simply define a fourth vector D which has the property : A.D=B.D=C.D=0 You will find it no problem to extend this argument to N dimensions with N being any natural number.

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato