Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 23, 2014, 06:19:54 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
RPGFan Community Quiz
Next Quiz Date: January 11, 2014
Subject: 999 (Nintendo DS)
For more information click HERE!
327268 Posts in 13401 Topics by 2163 Members
Latest Member: KashelGladio
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  RPGFan Message Boards
|-+  The Rest
| |-+  General Discussions
| | |-+  something thats been bugging me for a while.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print
Author Topic: something thats been bugging me for a while.  (Read 7856 times)
Alisha
Posts: 2713


Member
*

Z0eila@hotmail.com Z0eila
View Profile

Ignore
« on: September 27, 2009, 06:28:35 PM »

why is god masculinized? the thing thats been making me think of this is that we as humans tend to label objects of power as female. i mean you got the famous quote there she blows when for all i know moby dick could have been male. lots of guys feminize their cars vehicles. yet if you have ever been to a wedding ceremony its hard to deny that some religeons can at times look like they were instituted in order to control women.
Logged


“Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from.”
Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2009, 06:38:21 PM »

It's a matter of cultural history. Men have been in control for thousands of years in most cultures, and while there are examples where women were accorded good or even equal status, these are few and far between. Especially in Europe with feudalism and ultra-masculine ideas of property and conquest, following a rather patriarchal period for the "Roman" empire, God was transferred from being a natural force in early Christianity, to being a masculine force of "righteousness". Essentially, God was used by political forces at the time to legitimatise bloodlines and justify atrocities in the eyes of both scholars and the common people.

That view, however, is what you can call "common" religion. Essentially stemming from folk ideas about religion and such, only the more popular aspects and traditions of a religion are focused on. That's why people focus on the "Ten" Commandments and ignore the fact is has a lengthy history of being from a much longer list of laws. It's why people think of God as a person, instead of a spiritual force, and so confer upon "him" a lot of the flaws and ideals they themselves have.

That isn't to say this is altogether bad: it does make God more understandable for a lot of people. But if it's not balanced with a degree of research and profound intuition, a seeking out of the deeper aspects of spirituality, it becomes just the outer traditions and ideas.

I would argue that no serious scholar of religion thinks of God as a "man", but that is the public concept of Abrahamic God. It's less prominent say, in Hinduism (where female Shakti is given quite a bit of importance), or Buddhism (where gender is often removed from deities altogether).
Logged
MeshGearFox
Posts: 8346


HERE ON RUM ISLAND WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN RUM!

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2009, 07:01:45 PM »

Let's apply math!

1. There is a God.
2. Ancient people worshiped this god.
3. Ancient people characterized this god as male.
4. Males have penises.
-----------
1. Based on the assumption that God is male and that males have penises, and that both of these assumptions are tautologically sound, then it follows that God has a penis.
2. Based on the assumption that ancient people thought about god's gender, we can also assume that they thought about what this entailed -- that is, that god has a penis.
3. Based on points 1 and 2, we can assume that ancient people thought about God's penis.
4. Based on assumption 3, we can assume that rule 34 is older than dirt.

COLLEGE HAS TURNED ME INTO THIS!!!! WOOOOOAARGH
Logged

o/` I do not feel joy o/`
o/` I do not dream o/`
o/` I only stare at the door and smoke o/`

Miss Moonlight
Like a Radio Wave.
Posts: 16


Member
*

likearadiowave
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2009, 07:18:26 PM »

A few thoughts off the top of my head:

- Probably because the concept of god was created by a man.
- As he is "god", we want him to be big, strong and tough.
Logged
Dios GX
Banninated
Posts: 892

Member
*

dios@hidoshi.com GSaviourPrime
View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2009, 09:08:46 PM »

Simply put, because God created man in his image, and woman was created to be man's companion.

Think of the chicken or the egg, as an example. The case in point here, however, is that man was created first, and has been proven to be physically superior through overall genetics. Women, on the other hand, have been proven to excel at spirituality and mental prowess.

The entire concept of "women being controlled" is so brazenly put out of context and related to God-bashing that half the time, I just laugh at the mere thought. I dunno, maybe I think the idea of being a loving wife and having your man do all the physical laboring hard shit is crazy?

I'd love a life where all I gotta do is cook, clean the house and be bathed in affection. The concept seems pretty simple to me.
Logged
Dincrest
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 11618


Member
*


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2009, 09:42:10 PM »

Depends on the religion.  In many polytheistic religions, some of the most powerful deities are female.
Logged

I approve of this nonsense!
Fei
Posts: 1335


!?

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2009, 09:55:55 PM »

happens to be male

It just happens to be this way.  Flip a coin, and complain from the underside of it.  Sorry, but all races/species have the two sexes.  Crap, asexual things?  Am I going to look dumb if I continue this tirade?

I don't know what planet feminists live on, but when it comes to day-to-day life, no man is in control of any woman.  It's always the opposite.  But why should men care, when a woman's affection can make us feel better than any of our rule-based plans ever could, if only for a moment?

Does it make you mad that god might be male?  Does it make you mad that the president is black?  Everything is either male or female.  It is what it is.

Coming from a half-black guy who had to obsess over race relations his entire life, focusing on social issues I consider less prominent drains my soul.  
Code:
"When you say GENIAL MEMBER OF ETHNIC GROUPS THAT ORIGINATE IN THE AFRICAN CONTINENT OR CLOSEBY THEREIN, do you realize what you say?  Knock it off."  That would never be allowed on TV because the word carries more weight.  Yet, I hear it frequently.

I made a lot of assumptions in this post, mainly that Alisha doesn't like the fact that god might be male, and for that I apologize.  Hidoshi otherwise one-shotted the issue.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2009, 09:59:22 PM by Fei » Logged

If you re-spec your elduhz and own a Vita - http://twitter.com/BSNursery
Miss Moonlight
Like a Radio Wave.
Posts: 16


Member
*

likearadiowave
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2009, 10:09:01 PM »

Since god was made in "man's" image ("man" meaning humans in general), "God" can be either male, female, both or none. I don't see why because humans have a gender, god needs to.

In fact, "god" can be black, asian, or any other race as well.
Logged
Ryos
I can has demons?
Posts: 1700


Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2009, 10:29:22 PM »

Fun fact: the only well-known matriarchal society is the drow.  Historically speaking I remember there being only one matriarchal people. 
Logged

It's never too late to start learning; it's always too early to stop learning.
daschrier
Posts: 1389

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2009, 11:11:35 PM »

You must have it pretty easy if things like this bug you.
Logged
Daggerstrike
Rainbow Club Member
Posts: 1403


Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2009, 11:30:18 PM »

You must have it pretty easy if things like this bug you.

Simple folk are bothered by simple things.
Logged

All right, we are going to use a fan brush here and uh why don't you take some hunter green and we are going to put a happy little bush right down over here in the corner there and that'll just be our little secret and if you tell anyone that that bush is there I will come to your house and I will cut you.
MeshGearFox
Posts: 8346


HERE ON RUM ISLAND WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN RUM!

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2009, 11:58:37 PM »

Why are you Bob Ross!!
Logged

o/` I do not feel joy o/`
o/` I do not dream o/`
o/` I only stare at the door and smoke o/`

Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2009, 09:20:49 AM »

Fun fact: the only well-known matriarchal society is the drow.  Historically speaking I remember there being only one matriarchal people. 

Japan may have well started as a matriarchy. While the official records in the Kojiki and Nihon-shoki tend to refer largely to male leadership, there's some archaeological evidence which suggests that these are highly biased.

This of course may be why Shinto religion reflects a feminine idea of deity rather than a masculine one in the end.
Logged
Dincrest
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 11618


Member
*


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: September 28, 2009, 09:33:52 AM »

Isn't Judaism matriarchal?  From what I understand, in many cultures a child is X if his/her father is X, but a child is Jewish if his/her mother is Jewish.  And a lot of indigenous tribes that populated America before "white man came across the sea" (to quote Iron Maiden's 'Run to the Hills') were matriarchal.  Sure the more warlike tribes like the Apache had male chiefs, but the leaders of the more agrarian tribes were women.  That is, unless History Channel lied to me.   
Logged

I approve of this nonsense!
Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #14 on: September 28, 2009, 09:56:54 AM »

Depends on if they're pandering or not that week. I've come to distrust History Channel in terms of spin because it tends to be very liberal with its viewpoints. I don't mean to politicise mind you, but there's a strong interest in finding the feminine side of culture, and it occasionally works a little too much with theory or rumour.

Judaic culture is matriarchal in two ways. First, you're only a "Jew" if your mother is Jewish. Secondly, in family practice the mother tends to command more respect than the father. However, Judaism has often been seen as the defeater of matriarchal or Goddess-centred worship, imposing a masculine idea of God in regions conquered or emigrated to.

While early Judaism (though it's a stretch to call it that) was both polytheistic and possibly had some very strong matriarchal or Goddess-centred ideas, by the time it passes through Canaan, it's become a monotheistic and patriarchal religion. Abraham, Isaac, etc, on through to Moses shows a strong affinity for the commanding father figure. It is worth noting that in Abraham and Isaac's times, they were likely polytheists and referred to the ruler of a larger pantheon, rather than a singular God. In Canaan, Judaism becomes monotheistic by way various groups of Jews associating their respective chief deities with El, the chief deity of Canaanite religion.

Also, on Genesis (since Tony mentioned it). While the second account does prescribe Adam's flesh being used to create Eve, the first account of Genesis has man and woman being created side by side, simultaniously. This would seem in contradiction.

Scientifically speaking, if we were to use Genesis as an allegory for the development of the world, including evolution and so forth, the first account could be taken as a fairly good, if simplified picture of how things came to be. I take the first account as far more substantial in terms of actual creation/evolution, whereas the second account in the Garden of Eden is more of a philosophical issue, and does not, in my opinion, describe actual events.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!