Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 03, 2014, 03:50:26 AM

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!
330207 Posts in 13529 Topics by 2179 Members
Latest Member: Lian_Kazairl
* 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 7902 times)
Tooker
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 9272


Member
*

king_friday@hotmail.com PeopleJohnT bigfatusername@yahoo.com
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 28, 2009, 11:05:16 AM »

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).

I wanted to argue, but then I realized that maybe I wasn't being as precise in my head as you meant in your post.  So questions:

- When you say "man," in quotes, are you deliberately separating that from being male?  (For example, I am a man.  My pet rabbit was a male, but not a man.)

- When you say "scholar of religion," are you talking about people who study a lot of religions, or are you talking about people who have amassed a very large amount of knowledge about one religion?

Because I'd tend to agree with you regardless of the second question if the answer to the first is yes.  If the answer to the first question is no, I'd definitely argue with you if the answer to the second question is... the second thing I said. :)
Logged

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
—Kurt Vonnegut
Dios GX
Banninated
Posts: 892

Member
*

dios@hidoshi.com GSaviourPrime
View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2009, 12:36:42 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.

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna be blunt with you––giving an Earth-based ethnicity to an spiritual entity just sounds really... silly.
Logged
Esper_Crusader
Posts: 2451


I love you, Dr. Zaius

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #17 on: September 28, 2009, 04:16:22 PM »

This is just me talking but I think the whole topic is irrelevant. I stopped believing in "God" a loooong time ago. I'm all for spirituality if that's your thing and it's a positive influence on your life but I simply can't believe in an all powerful creator. Also, don't bother talking down to me or telling me I'm wrong. It's my life, not yours.
Logged

Currently playing: .


-----------------------------------
"If I can't smoke and swear, I'm F**ked." ~ Ricky
Hidoshi
RPGFan's Open Source Field Agent
Posts: 2901


Built This House

Member
*

clothothespinner@hotmail.com BrandingRune
View Profile WWW

Ignore
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2009, 04:48:49 PM »

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).

I wanted to argue, but then I realized that maybe I wasn't being as precise in my head as you meant in your post.  So questions:

- When you say "man," in quotes, are you deliberately separating that from being male?  (For example, I am a man.  My pet rabbit was a male, but not a man.)

- When you say "scholar of religion," are you talking about people who study a lot of religions, or are you talking about people who have amassed a very large amount of knowledge about one religion?

Because I'd tend to agree with you regardless of the second question if the answer to the first is yes.  If the answer to the first question is no, I'd definitely argue with you if the answer to the second question is... the second thing I said. :)

I mean "man" in the sense of human. A person. :) As to scholar of religion, it could be either. Soemone who has spent a great deal of time researching a topic and engaging with it may be a scholar of something.

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.

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna be blunt with you––giving an Earth-based ethnicity to an spiritual entity just sounds really... silly.

I believe her point was that if we give God a human image, it can be of any particular ethnicity that suits us, and will not matter.

ie: It's silly to argue if Jesus (divine, not human) is white or black. His image could be either and still be genuine.
Logged
Prime Mover
Posts: 2792


All's fair in love, war, and the recording studio

Member
*

Shattre
View Profile WWW Email

Ignore
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2009, 04:50:55 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.

Sorry to say this, but I think the more realistic reason why traditionally male objects are named female things is because they're things that men "use". Ships, swords, instruments... men fantisize about them being females because they'd rather "play" with a woman than a man, if you get what I'm saying. Reminds me of the famous scene from the movie "The Commitments" where the trumpet player is telling the sax player to name his sax after a beautiful woman, and then "play 'er like you're suckin' on 'er tit". I think boats come from the notion that a sailor is "married to the sea", or misses a lover back home, and so names his ship after her to remember by. Swords/Weapons for obviously sexual reasons, you hold it, you "use" it. If anything, the feminization of masculine objects is simply a symptom of the objectification of women in other areas. Ships maybe not so much, but the others, yes.
Logged


eelhouse.net
- order the new album

Currently Playing: Metroid Prime 2, Trails in the Sky, Bioshock: Infinite
Currently Listening to: Devin Townsend, Dream Theater
Watching: Star Trek: TOS, Slayers, Doctor Who (as usual)
MeshGearFox
Posts: 8466


HERE ON RUM ISLAND WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN RUM!

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #20 on: September 28, 2009, 04:59:08 PM »

Men want to have sex with boats and cars? I FEEL SOME MATH COMING ON.

1. Men refer to cars as if they were female.
2. Men want to have sex with females.
----------
1. If men refer to cars as female, they consider them female.
2. If men consider cars as female, then they want to have sex with them.

1. All men want to have sex with cars.
2. God is male.
----------
1. God wants to have sex with cars.

1. God wants to have sex with cars.
2. Dragons want to have sex with cars.
----------
1. God is a dragon.
Logged

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

Fei
Posts: 1335


!?

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #21 on: September 28, 2009, 07:51:19 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.

Sorry to say this, but I think the more realistic reason why traditionally male objects are named female things is because they're things that men "use". Ships, swords, instruments... men fantisize about them being females because they'd rather "play" with a woman than a man, if you get what I'm saying. Reminds me of the famous scene from the movie "The Commitments" where the trumpet player is telling the sax player to name his sax after a beautiful woman, and then "play 'er like you're suckin' on 'er tit". I think boats come from the notion that a sailor is "married to the sea", or misses a lover back home, and so names his ship after her to remember by. Swords/Weapons for obviously sexual reasons, you hold it, you "use" it. If anything, the feminization of masculine objects is simply a symptom of the objectification of women in other areas. Ships maybe not so much, but the others, yes.

It's not because men 'use' these things, it's because men 'love' these things.  It's a hetero thing.  If you're a lesbian woman, you wouldn't name your car Robert...

edit: I just realized I may have not added anything to your post.  If not, I simply agree.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2009, 07:53:16 PM by Fei » Logged

If you re-spec your elduhz and own a Vita - http://twitter.com/BSNursery
Tooker
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 9272


Member
*

king_friday@hotmail.com PeopleJohnT bigfatusername@yahoo.com
View Profile
« Reply #22 on: September 28, 2009, 08:21:20 PM »

This is just me talking but I think the whole topic is irrelevant. I stopped believing in "God" a loooong time ago. I'm all for spirituality if that's your thing and it's a positive influence on your life but I simply can't believe in an all powerful creator. Also, don't bother talking down to me or telling me I'm wrong. It's my life, not yours.

"Don't bother talking down to me?"  I assume you realize how condescending that sounds.  Yay, irony.

Regardless, yeah, it is just you talking when you say the topic's irrelevant, for two reasons.  One, your personal belief in God has no bearing on the discussion of why people talk about God as a male.  Two, some people find the topic of others beliefs interesting, even when those beliefs do not match their own.


To Hidoshi: yeah, in that case, I bet you're right.  There are religions that believe that God was once a human, but has moved on to a more exalted plane of existence (my apologies to anyone who thinks I'm talking about their church and getting it wrong), but even that wouldn't mean God's human now.
Logged

Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
—Kurt Vonnegut
kyuusei
Mr. Lightning Bolt
Administrator
Posts: 9365


Blame the dragoon.

Member
*


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: September 28, 2009, 08:59:07 PM »

I don't believe in God anymore either, buuuut I always thought people considered God as male because in my once-religion it was always said that 'man was created in the image of God' and the first human in the bible (Adam) was, well, male.

Besides, it'd be kinda weird to call God 'it'...
Logged

NANOMACHINES, SON.
Dincrest
RPGFan Editor
Posts: 11733


Member
*


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2009, 09:45:16 PM »

Religion and politics are subjects that can make anyone defensive.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2009, 09:52:22 PM by Dincrest » Logged

Next bike-a-thon: PD500 Rock 'n Roll ride (to benefit Parkinson's Disease) October 5, 2014
CastNuri
AMG A GIRL
Posts: 1287


There are no coincidences.

Member
*

CastNuri
View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2009, 02:38:45 AM »

I never imagined God as being male, in spite of using the term 'He' to refer to Him. The masculinization of God was something I remember thinking about when I was a kid ("Mommy, is God a girl or a boy?"). I think I was told that the original term for God in Islam was neither masculine or feminine but that when the holy books were translated into other languages, the natural patriarchal bias allowed the male form of reference to be used for God in most societies.
Logged

"It is a silly game where nobody wins. " ~ Thomas Fuller ~

http://castnuri.tumblr.com
Alisha
Posts: 2714


Member
*

Z0eila@hotmail.com Z0eila
View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2009, 08:29:41 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.


to me relying on another in such a way is a show of weakness. i'd rather protect than be protected.
Logged


“Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from.”
Prime Mover
Posts: 2792


All's fair in love, war, and the recording studio

Member
*

Shattre
View Profile WWW Email

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2009, 10:33:27 PM »

C'mon, don't you know? Women are the weaker sex. It's all true. Women are also less intelligent and must always be protected from harm and from their own intellictual weaknesses. That's why so few women ever go to college. And that's why a woman must augment the frailty of her sex with a masculine companion. Of course God isn't a woman you dumb bitch! What kinda crazy caca idea is that! Women can't even be a master of the house, let alone the creator of the universe!

</sarcasm>
Logged


eelhouse.net
- order the new album

Currently Playing: Metroid Prime 2, Trails in the Sky, Bioshock: Infinite
Currently Listening to: Devin Townsend, Dream Theater
Watching: Star Trek: TOS, Slayers, Doctor Who (as usual)
MeshGearFox
Posts: 8466


HERE ON RUM ISLAND WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN RUM!

Member
*


View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2009, 11:19:34 PM »

Quote
I think I was told that the original term for God in Islam was neither masculine or feminine but that when the holy books were translated into other languages

Islam's more recent than Christianity and Judaism so any sort of original term isn't like... from Islam.

Anyway.

Better idea. The supreme creator gods in ATR are generally more ambiguous about their gender. Culturally, there's evidence that a male gender role was later applied to them, although to get the specifics of that I'd need to get my Benjamin C. Ray reader, which is... at home.
Logged

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

CastNuri
AMG A GIRL
Posts: 1287


There are no coincidences.

Member
*

CastNuri
View Profile

Ignore
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2009, 05:25:07 AM »

I meant the term for God in the Quran. The Bible and the Torah were originally written in different languages though (Hebrew for the Torah, not sure about the Bible). I wonder if God was referred to as male in the original texts or if, like Arabic, there is a non-gender term for God in those languages? Sometimes I feel like so much gets lost and manipulated in translation.


Logged

"It is a silly game where nobody wins. " ~ Thomas Fuller ~

http://castnuri.tumblr.com
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!