God's gender? And more importantly, does it matter? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-09-2004, 09:27 AM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:36 AM
I would like to interrupt this thread with a sill response.....

IS TOO

IS NOT

IS TOO

Thank you!
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 09:30 AM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,999
Local Time: 10:36 AM

Only a female God could have a good enough sense of humor to create the male species
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 11:59 AM   #63
Acrobat
 
thacraic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 350
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Actually, there absolutely is. Read John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2
Yep.
__________________
thacraic is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 02:03 PM   #64
Blue Crack Addict
 
beli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In a frock in Western Australia
Posts: 15,464
Local Time: 11:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

IS TOO

IS NOT

IS TOO

Thats the FYM slogan, isnt it?
__________________
beli is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 02:52 PM   #65
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:36 AM
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-09-2004, 05:05 PM   #66
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by thacraic
Hiya BVS (hope its ok I call you that),
God DID make man in His image, I don't see how anything I have said would state otherwise. If I recall, the first person God made did in fact have, two legs, a hairy chest (maybe, maybe not, depending on how literal you take renaissance artists rendering of Adam ) and a penis. Granted God doesn't need any of those things, I give you that but why (again if you believe God did create man, the universe etc) did He make Adam as He did and then say it was in His image? (Actually He said let us make man in Our image, which is a reference of course to Christ (you know He was present at the creation of the world... etc...)
It depends what version of Genesis you read, though.

The second, "priestly" account of the Creation in Genesis mentions men and women being made at the same time "in our image" throwing the whole Adam's rib story out the window. I don't know if other editions of the Bible edit this version out, but the two versions I've read had it.

It's also worth noting that the Wisdom/Logos figure that Jesus becomes (the Word present at Creation) is originally female in the Old Testament. I have the verses up in my notes. It's a real shift in perception because of the Greco-Roman influence on the NT.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 09:53 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Only a female God could have a good enough sense of humor to create the male species
Hrm.. unless God had a feminine side... Probably.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 10:26 AM   #68
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41


It depends what version of Genesis you read, though.

The second, "priestly" account of the Creation in Genesis mentions men and women being made at the same time "in our image" throwing the whole Adam's rib story out the window. I don't know if other editions of the Bible edit this version out, but the two versions I've read had it.

It's also worth noting that the Wisdom/Logos figure that Jesus becomes (the Word present at Creation) is originally female in the Old Testament. I have the verses up in my notes. It's a real shift in perception because of the Greco-Roman influence on the NT.


You may want to explain who P was...hehe
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:09 AM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41


It depends what version of Genesis you read, though.

The second, "priestly" account of the Creation in Genesis mentions men and women being made at the same time "in our image" throwing the whole Adam's rib story out the window. I don't know if other editions of the Bible edit this version out, but the two versions I've read had it.
The summary description of the creation of man in Chapter 1 and the detailed description of the creation of man in Chapter 2 do not conflict.

I'm not sure why some theologians find the false distinction.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:33 AM   #70
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


The summary description of the creation of man in Chapter 1 and the detailed description of the creation of man in Chapter 2 do not conflict.

I'm not sure why some theologians find the false distinction.
I find there is a major distinction. Why would the summary account be there, unless it is markedly different than the longer one? The Hebrew editors were careful to include both sides of the story, as it were, when they compiled the final texts. That's why there are so many duplicates.

I find it very interesting and important it's there, considering how much emphasis has been placed on the Genesis story in the past--Man was superior because he was created *first* and Women being inferior because she was created second *and* out of Man. Thus, she was "weaker" from the start. When you have an account which omits those details, it puts quite a different spin on things.

Perhaps to a male reader, this *isn't* much of an issue, but to a female audience (particularly given the blame of original sin we've enjoyed for how many thousands of years) it's a nice inclusion.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:34 AM   #71
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


You may want to explain who P was...hehe


Awww, don't you want to write that particular essay for me?
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 11:56 AM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41
I find there is a major distinction. Why would the summary account be there, unless it is markedly different than the longer one?
Chapter one is a summary account of the six days of creation. Chapter 2 is a detailed account of the creation of man. I don't see how this becomes two separate stories.


Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41
I find it very interesting and important it's there, considering how much emphasis has been placed on the Genesis story in the past--Man was superior because he was created *first* and Women being inferior because she was created second *and* out of Man. Thus, she was "weaker" from the start. When you have an account which omits those details, it puts quite a different spin on things.

Perhaps to a male reader, this *isn't* much of an issue, but to a female audience (particularly given the blame of original sin we've enjoyed for how many thousands of years) it's a nice inclusion.
If you look to Chapter 1 to combat the mis-use of Chapter 2 in gender relations, fine. But to turn that into a principle of interpretation that makes one account true and the other false is dangerous. On this basis, with four different Gospels, we could dismiss three (and, in reality, all four).
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 12:49 PM   #73
New Yorker
 
AvsGirl41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 2,948
Local Time: 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Chapter one is a summary account of the six days of creation. Chapter 2 is a detailed account of the creation of man. I don't see how this becomes two separate stories.

If you look to Chapter 1 to combat the mis-use of Chapter 2 in gender relations, fine. But to turn that into a principle of interpretation that makes one account true and the other false is dangerous. On this basis, with four different Gospels, we could dismiss three (and, in reality, all four).
I never said one was false. I don't believe they are the same story, however. There are real differences between the two--they're written by different people, set into one narrative. This is well known.

But yes, I'm more inclined to believe that God (who knows all, sees all, nothing is impossible, etc.) made man and woman at the same time, both in the divine image, than having to stop and think twice about it--and without having to resort to borrowing body parts. Chapter 2 seems to have its roots more in folklore and the truth is probably somewhere within the two.

Personally, I believe it's more dangerous to limit God to fit within the confines of our Biblical text than to engage in literary criticism.
The variations within the Gospels are hardly the same issue, as those are a matter of different sources, audiences and concerns.
A blanket defense such as that is as silly as anyone who would quickly dismiss the texts.
__________________
AvsGirl41 is offline  
Old 12-10-2004, 01:32 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:36 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AvsGirl41
I never said one was false. I don't believe they are the same story, however. There are real differences between the two--they're written by different people, set into one narrative. This is well known.

But yes, I'm more inclined to believe that God (who knows all, sees all, nothing is impossible, etc.) made man and woman at the same time, both in the divine image, than having to stop and think twice about it--and without having to resort to borrowing body parts. Chapter 2 seems to have its roots more in folklore and the truth is probably somewhere within the two.

Personally, I believe it's more dangerous to limit God to fit within the confines of our Biblical text than to engage in literary criticism.
The variations within the Gospels are hardly the same issue, as those are a matter of different sources, audiences and concerns.
A blanket defense such as that is as silly as anyone who would quickly dismiss the texts.
I guess if we have different views on the author, then we will always come to different conclusions.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com