Talk:Gender of God

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Philosophy[edit]

I have removed the following sentences (and corresponding references) from the "Evolutionary Process" section as it gives the false impression that metaphysics is somehow "over" in analytic philosophy and philosophy in general, arguably glossing over and/or ignoring the work done in the past few decades done by Kripke, Putnam, Lewis, Armstrong and many others. They read:

...nor in philosophy. Analytic philosophy widely considers speculative metaphysics to be outside the reach of epistemology and scientific scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T of Locri (talk • contribs) 08:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Son of God[edit]

The issue of "son of God" or "Son of God" is barely relevant to the article, but since Jeffro has raised it again, and the issues do have some circumstantial relationship to the article, I'll make a second brief response here. I trust Jeffro would not argue that "Jesus Christ, son of God" must be correct. In 99% of uses, son is appositional, an atheist describing Christian belief would write, "Jesus Christ, [the] Son of God". It would be possible, though I'd love to see a source attesting it, to say "Jesus Christ, son of God", just as one might say "Adam, son of God" or "David, son of God". Here the intent is "Adam, [a] son of God", the lower case is shorthand for a non-unique representative of a class (I believe Discourse Representation Theory suggests an implicit quantifier is introduced along with a new discourse variable in such constructions). In the same way, the capital is merely shorthand for the definite article in the case of Jesus, who some contend is the unique Son of God (while also being truly a son of God simultaneously). One thing that decieves people in cases like this is English possessive constructions. In Greek and Hebrew (the languages on which theories about Jesus are ultimately dependent), there are different ways of forming the constructions, which make the issue easier to see. Hebrew (typical of Semitic languages generally) uses a construct state in which a chain of modifiers precede a noun in the absolute state. Long chains are possible—"the children of the wives of the advisors of the king" (the last is absolute, the modifiers are construct). Where the absolute noun is definite, the whole chain is definite. B'n Elohim or the Son of God is definite because Elohim God is definite. Circumlocutions make it possible to avoid the implication of definiteness if required. Greek has multiple ways of saying "Son of God" again with different nuances of definiteness—ho tou theou quios (literally, the of-God Son) is a very natural Greek construction, it would use an indefinite particle were it to wish to avoid definiteness in regard to such statements.

I'd be very interested if Jeffro could provide some sources that show usage of Jesus being describe as "son of God" with a lower case "s". Otherwise, whatever he is suggesting regarding English syntax, might be true and I'm just missing his point, but is not particularly relevant, because it is hypothetical. Sources secular or devotional all use the capital, so even if I agreed with Jeffro, we'd be best off dropping it, because no consensus would form in opposition to the strong precedent of sources. What do you say Jeffro? Let sleeping dogs lie? Alastair Haines (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I "raised it again" purely because it seemed to be the only thing that might remotely resemble a basis for your claim that I had argued with the OED (which remains unclear). Insofar as your statement that atheists would capitalise (I've determined that you're also Australian so I'll drop the US spelling here) 'Son of God', I think they would be the least likely to do so.
To clarify my position on this so there is no doubt... if using the phrase as a title ('[Jesus Christ,] [the] Son of God'), it would indeed properly be capitalised. In a statement such as 'Jesus was the son of God' in the same manner as 'Albert Einstein was the son of Hermann Einstein', it would be proper to use 'son', though 'Jesus was the Son of God' would be correct in the manner of 'Charles is the Prince of Wales'. No statement herein should be inferred as any opinion as to the existence of a god, gods, God, or to any progeny of such entities of any gender, or no gender.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're Australian! He he, drat. Work hard while I'm away mate, 'cause Tim and I are serious about scrutinising things when we return. Hmmm, you're Aussie, that does make it harder to tell you what I really think. ;) Don't drink and drive over the silly season and avagoodweekend! Alastair Haines (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible states (using theism) that God created man in his image, this man being exactly that: a man, only after the men was asleep and a rib was removed was a woman created. Since god created a woman for the man and man was created first, God must be a man, since he created the first being in his image.--72.74.114.109 (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

polytheism/pantheism[edit]

I don't really have any input on the JCI issues. However, I did notice that the "Polytheism" section sort of describes a form of pantheism. In a nutshell, Polytheism is the belief in many distinct gods, of various genders (including neutral or hermaphroditic - the Norse Loki does gender switching IIRC). They may or may not source from (or really be part of) one older god. Pantheism is the belief that many gods are worshiped separately, but are actually all one. (The reason I haven't stuffed this into the article is that I haven't gone and dug up sources yet.)

But the polytheistic stuff seems somewhat out of place here. Polytheists don't have to ask what gender Thor is, or Diana, or Artemis. Do the non-JCI religions even belong here, or is the article really about "The gender of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions"?

--RavanAsteris (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know I reopened a can of worms, but the way the article reads the non-JCI sections are just after-thoughts or bolt-ons.

--RavanAsteris (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The polytheism section doesn't contain any material about gender at all, so I'm going to be bold and remove it. --Alynna (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's what else was bothering me about it - the section as written had nothing to do with the topic! Thanks for the sanity check. --RavanAsteris (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shack[edit]

Hello, all. Just wanted to point out that in the (bestselling?) book, "The Shack", God appears as a woman for most of the book (despite the name "Papa"). Shall I add that to the "Pop Culture" section? Or is a novel not considered Pop Culture? Bpenguin17 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work of fiction for sure which was quite poplar and was also made in to a movie . . . I would answer your 2010 question as yes, it should go in to Pop Culture . . . just a note on the author's view that God is a black woman . . . Jesus depicted as a country type hick, no disrespect, and the Holy Spirit as a woman . . . i loved it . . . when I read God's word, the Bible, when i look at the Greek and the Hebrew and the Aramaic i too see God (Father Son Holy Spirit) a lot differently given studying the languages . . . CharleneHios (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Gender of God[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gender of God's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "britannica":

  • From Supreme Being: Britannica 1992
  • From God in the Bahá'í Faith: "The Bahá'í Faith". Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1988. ISBN 0852294867.
  • From Manifestation of God: "The Bahá'í Faith". Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1988. ISBN 0-85229-486-7.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indo European root from the American Heritage Dictionary[edit]

the AHD's indo european roots appendix states that the root for God is Gheu (ə) -. The root means: To call, invoke. I find it interesting that the other english word from this root is "giddy", as in insane or possessed. So god may be considered more of a verb than a noun, and genderless. hey, its not my research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate for deletion?[edit]

Is it really necessary to have an article about the gender of an imaginary being, where gender is not a relevant concept anyway? 51kwad (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're right about God being imaginary, WP has numerous articles about imaginary beings, including Mickey Mouse. Would you like to get rid of all of those articles? As for the relevance of concepts of gender to God, that is a topic of serious discussion among people who write about God, as well as those who worship God. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does God need a gender?[edit]

Is this topic still in discussion? God created male and female within material creation for the purpose of reproduction. Because humans are social beings sex and gender have relationship and social aspects for us. But since God is Spirit there is no need for gender. The use of He in referring to God is a condition of human language. "It" would be inappropriate. In Judaism and Christianity (O.T. and N.T.) God is sometimes called Father as an indication of a profoundly intimate and caring concern for us and our lives. God is above gender.--Margaret9mary (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your belief. Other believers are equally adamant for theirs. Frex:
It seems that if God exists, it has chosen not to resolve this dispute. So its gender, for those who care about it, shall remain an issue. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly didn't bring up the subject of God as female--however to clarify. Many languages do not have a pronoun especially for God. So the question is--what pronoun to use? So "He" for God (both capitalized) is often used.
For humans the pronouns used are "he" and "she." "It" is used usually for objects in English, or with pejorative intent (Latin-based languages are different). For a number of centuries references to humans used the terms "man," "men" and "mankind" with the unspoken implication that they included womenkind--their use certainly didn't exclude women. These usages involve the real limitations of human languages.
But the use of He for God doesn't mean that God is a superhuman male. Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in His image....male and female He created them"
Since God is Spirit, does it mean that God created us with souls? The Bible doesn't clarify the point. However Jesus, the Son of God was certainly male in his physical body.
I don't think God is female; the Bible says "God created... male and female." (is this limited to material creation?)--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give a more NPOV this is true only in monotheistic religions--and the article as it stands says this. I think what is frustrating for many women today is that men tend to assume that God is male like them, feel threatened by the idea that God is not male like a human male and shut out any spiritual insights women might have. Jesus listened to women and responded to them (See the Marriage at Cana, Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene as the first witness to the Resurrection). It's something the early Christian church accepted at first, then soon began to abandon. Why can't men follow Jesus? (I wish I didn't have to express this POV, but men often express a purely masculine POV and eliminate any insights women can contribute.)--Margaret9mary (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all your Bible's authors favored listening to and responding to women. Frex, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Is it any wonder why so many Christian men are male chauvinists? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is: Wikipedia does not decide if God has a gender. Wikipedia simply makes an inventory of the notable opinions thereupon, the most notable and widespread being that God is male (whatever male could mean for God/a spirit). We don't take sides in this matter, all such notable opinions are worthy of being mentioned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comparative Religion - Role of language[edit]

I would like to see some examples and citations to flesh out this potentially interesting point. Sadly, I'm not the person to add this information, but as an interested reader, I'd say it lacks clarity and credibility in it's current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cspooner (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

carm.org[edit]

This website aims to show that the Catholic Church and the Islam are heresies. Therefore it is not a reliable source anyway one would look at it. It is a highly polemic source instead of being academically descriptive. I have reverted edits based upon carm.org propaganda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a historical, anthropological and sociological sense Christian are the persons/churches who define themselves as Christian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis 1:26-27:[edit]

In the article, in the section, "In the Hebrew and Christian Bible" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God#In_the_Hebrew_and_Christian_Bible), the claim is made that Elohim was male and female, and they made man in their image.

On the contrary, nowhere in Genesis is a female identity assigned to YHWH the Father, or to Ha Mashiach the son. In addition, if there was any doubt about the gender of the son, (because we can easily confirm the gender of the Father), we can check John 1:1-4:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with YHWH, and the Word was Elohim. The same [Word] was in the beginning with YHWH." This shows that this "Word" (the second entity in Elohim, also known as the Messiah) was the same individual who was conversing with the Father in Genesis 1:26-27, since it says clearly that "The same was in the beginning with YHWH".

And what gender was this "Word", that was with the Father during the creation? We can continue reading at John 1:3-4: "All things were made by HIM, and without HIM was not anything made that was made. In HIM was life, and the life was the light of all men."

I have taken the liberty to remove the false statement that Genesis 1:26-27 speak of a female Messiah who was with the Father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.15.18 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is original research based upon primary sources, does not beat verifiable information from reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "original research". It is quoting directly from the Bible itself. All other research is "original research", based on the Bible. Quoting from the Scripture is not "research"; it is citation. Saying that citing the Bible is "original research" is the same as saying that citing the constitution is "original research". Calling a secondary article "verifiable information" that has more credibility than the Bible itself is the same as saying that a Law student's thesis is more "verifiable information" than the constitution itself. That is flawed logic. Nomnompuffs (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I just told you is well-established Wikipedia practice. We don't perform original research upon the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc., but instead we trust scholars to perform this analysis for us. Coogan is a top of the food chain Bible scholar. See also WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Torah isn't a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Your second revert: I noticed that after I replied, you weaseled in another revert, even though there is a very pronounced time between my response and your revert; i.e, it looks as if you would have seen my response here on the talk page, and then chosen to sneakily revert anyway. I'd like to ask you to respect the discussion process, and the entire purpose of the "Talk page" dialogue system, and engage in due dialogue when disputing changes. I have a right to contribute to the body of knowledge, and to remove factual inaccuracies, as does every other editor of the Wiki.
In addition, the name of the section is "In the Hebrew and Christian Bible", so the only logical and standing final authority on this particular section is the Hebrew and Christian bible. My citations are from this very text, the Hebrew and Christian Bible. I have done nothing but correct a factual misattribution which misquotes the Hebrew and Christian Bible.
Please show where or how my edit is not consistent with the Hebrew and Christian Bible, or else please refrain from further vandalization and opinionated reverts. Torah is a reliable source when the very section being edited is specifically describing the contents of the Torah section of the Hebrew and Christian Bible. Nomnompuffs (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Torah isn't a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia. You may want to read WP:SOURCES and WP:PRIMARY. Then read WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also Template:Religious text primary which acknowledges this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Translating the Bible is a highly contentious process. Interpreting the Bible is a highly contentious process. That's why Wikipedia only trusts scholars to render the viewpoints of the Bible, and does not allow for original research based upon the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section in question is asking, "What does the Hebrew and Christian Bible have to say on the Gender of God". I have not interpreted anything. I cited the source. The view follows naturally. I did not need to interpret anything. It flowed naturally from the letter of the text.
Again, since the section being edited is a section on the view of "God" in the Hebrew and Christian Bible, and the originally disputed quotation is from Genesis 1:26-27, which is a Torah verse, the Torah is clearly the only final authority on anything written in this section. As a corollary of this, I ask you to prove that, from the Hebrew and Christian Bibles, the "Elohim" spoken of in Genesis 1:26-27 had a Female component.
The burden of proof now lies with you. I have already proven, from the Hebrew and Christian Bible that it does not say this. In order for you to argue the opposite and perform any further reverts, it is left to you to prove, from the Hebrew and Christian Bible, that is does indeed say that there is a female component to Elohim the Creator, described in Genesis 1:26-27. I have again taken the liberty to revert your reversion.
Please stop vandalizing the article, and respect the due process of burden of evidence. I have already, from the final authority on the section, given evidence.
The only possible source of evidence for an analysis of the Hebrew and Christian Bible is the Hebrew and Christian Bible. This is basic logic. The section is asking, "What does the Hebrew and Christian Bible say?". Nomnompuffs (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You either play by the Wikipedia rules or leave. The choice is yours. The burden of proof has been satisfied according to WP:VER through citing a reliable source. The Torah isn't an authority upon the Torah. You are not a reliable source and neither is Torah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am now very confident that the next step you will take is to ban me from further edits, so before you do this, I will take the liberty to point out the insanity in the reasoning that you are using to justify your reverts:
You just said, in your own words, and I quote: "The Torah isn't an authority upon the Torah.".
Let the record bear that this person who is acting in the name and the authority of Wikipedia is being headstrong, and denying the very basic logical premise that the contents of a book written as they appear, are the final authority on the content of that book. It follows naturally that a copy of Macbeth is the final authority on what is written in the book, Macbeth.
It also follows then, that the contents of the book, the Bible, are the final authority on the contents of the Bible. I am again, about to take the liberty to revert your revert, if you have done it again, since again, the burden of proof remains with you, as I have already provided, from the final authority, evidence to support my original change.
I will also again, for the record, ask that you respect and follow the due process of burden of proof and provide proof for a female component of "Elohim", as described in Genesis 1:26-27, which is the very text that is disputed by this entire discussion. Nomnompuffs (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Torah isn't an academic treatise about the Torah. In respect to analyzing the Torah, Wikipedia only trusts scholars, who publish peer-reviewed research and books edited by academic publishing houses (scientific/scholarly publishers). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is flawed logic, irrational and insanity.
The situation is this: the original content of the article before I came here were inconsistent with the text of the Bible. I corrected this, and gave relevant citations. At this point, regardless of how you look at it, you have no right to intervene as a moderating influence. Your closest right to intervene is in the capacity of an independent editor, because I have not broken protocol or caused discord. I have disputed the content of the article, and provided relevant citations, as any editor should.
Your intervention in the capacity of a Moderator is an abuse of privileges. At most you should be presenting proof of a Female component in the Genesis account, as any other editor is obliged to do. I reject your current actions in the capacity of a moderator in this matter, on the basis of your flawed logic, your inability to prove that the Hebrew and Christian Bible describes a female component to Elohim, and your disrespect, and high-handed abuse of the due process of dispute.
Additionally, calling your logic "insanity" is not calling you "insane", and there is a difference between the two. The former is an attack on your epistemology. The latter is an attack on your person. You seem to be very intent on building a case to use to silence and censor me on this matter, by finding an excuse to ban me. I will again revert any revert you have made, pending proof from you, or anyone else that there is a Female component to Elohim, as described in the Hebrew and Christian Bible. Nomnompuffs (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your words, images and ideas are not suppressed, simply not being promulgated on the website of a private charity. You are free to post your words, images and ideas on your own website, blog, newspaper, podcast, tshirt, bumper sticker or other form of free speech. There is a handy essay here, WP:Alternative outlets. Perhaps your website will be of such quality that millions will turn to it for information. There are quite a few places to start a blog free of charge....

— MrBill3 (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed this discussion on the Active Disagreements, awaiting a 3rd opinion. Let the record show that two moderators, Jim1138 and C.Fred have reverted changes without even appearing once on the talk page, and have therefore violated due process of discussion. Nomnompuffs (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't push your luck. By Wikipedia rules, this isn't a disagreement, it is reverting vandalism. You are not entitled to remove sourced text just because you do not like it and prefer to think that the Torah would support you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you did not provide any evidence, as you have falsely claimed there, you are just pontificating about what the Bible is supposed to mean. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My revert was strictly procedural: I felt the better option, as an administrator, was to revert Nomnompuffs' violation of WP:3RR rather than block him for the violation. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am directly quoting you now; you just said, "Don't push your luck". Are you saying that it is "luck", or a privilege that you have granted me, to edit the public domain Encyclopedia, known as Wikipedia? How am I "lucky" to be engaging in this dispute? And how is it "pushing my luck" to list my disagreement on the Disagreement page? Is it that you see me as a lesser contributor because I have a view that seems to be opposed to yours?
In that case, where view clashes with view, we must let the authoritative source be the final arbiter. Which is precisely what I have done. I am not acting on luck; I have respected the rules of scholarly debate, and provided citations from the final source.
There is no luck involved here. If you ban me without due discussion and without carrying your burden of proof which you still have not done, it is not that I have been vanquished by a "higher being" who has poured out retribution upon me for daring to oppose its illogic. It is that a Wikipedia Moderator has disrespected protocol and the due process of dispute, and denigrated the dignity of Wikipedia's open platform for credible contribution to the body of knowledge through examination of authoritative souces.
Your condescension and feelings of entitlement and high-handedness are showing. Nomnompuffs (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomnompuffs: Part of "protocol and the due process of dispute" is the three revert rule, which you have broken. If we were to enforce that strictly, you would already be temporarily blocked. That aside, I suggest you focus here on discussion of reliable sources surrounding your desired edit, paying particular not of Wikipedia guidelines' preference for secondary sources over primary. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, which is why you can clearly see at the very beginning of this dispute (and in the History Log for the article) that my contribution was done without a registered account. That is not an excuse or justification for me having broken the "3 Revert Rule", but it does help to remove the indirect accusation leveled at me, that I have not respected protocol. I was not aware that there was a "3 Revert Rule". In every other respect in as much as there exist basic rules for scholarly debate, I have been respectful of those common-knowledge rules. Nomnompuffs (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomnompuffs: The first edit on the top of your talk page is a warning about your edit warring. Jim1138 (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomnompuffs, if you are a newbie, you can be excused for not knowing the rules. But not acknowledging the rules after you have been repeatedly warned of breaking them is not wisdom. As I told you, your choice is to abide by the rules and become a productive editor or break them and be blocked. If we compare a reference based upon Coogan's work with your pontification about the Bible, it is comparing evidence with a mere whim. All editors have opinions and philosophers think that opinion is the lowest form of knowledge; that's why Wikipedia only renders reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already said: I was not attempting to excuse or justify the infraction. I was simply unaware. It is a statement not for vindication, but for disambiguation of motive. Your statement above here doesn't conflict with that. But I am sure that any reader who examines the statement will be rational enough to realize the redundancy of your statement and draw the same conclusion. Nomnompuffs (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It remains a mystery to me how could you have remained unaware of the rules while the warning messages were delivered in real time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3O[edit]

Hi, I hope to be of some assistance in resolving the issue flagged on the 3O page. I have very limited familiarity with biblical scholarship, so I hope I can bring a relatively unbiased voice to the discussion. As I understand it, the question is whether there is a female component implied/embedded in the word "Elohim". Is that correct? If so, are there any WP:RS's which indicate this to be the case? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is a book by Michael Coogan, which is properly cited in the footnotes. Besides, if we are to pontificate about the Bible (see above), it intuitively makes sense: the image of God is male and female, the likeness of God is male and female, therefore God (or Elohim) is/are male and female (Elohim is a plural). Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order to repeat myself, this wasn't a conflict between two scholarly views, presented by different reliable sources. It simply was removal of sourced information because the editor has his/her own interpretation of the Torah and therefore does not like what the cited reliable source said (source written by a world-class authority on the Hebrew Bible). So it is basically a conflict between verifiable information and original research, and the user got blocked for not ceasing reverting. No editor is allowed to delete sourced information simply because he/she does not like it. Chaos would ensue if we would allow that to happen. So, it was a conflict between vandalism and reverting vandalism, regardless of how noble the reasons for vandalism were. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, the editor has abused the third opinion process. This was a conflict between something (verifiable information) and nothing (original research). A third opinion could only exist between something and something, not between something and nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Tgeorgescu, I guess you answered my question ;-) So there are WP:RS's which the article cited. Is that your understanding Nomnompuffs? Do you also have WP:RS's for the edit/s you wished to make? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot answer instead him/her, but Elaine Pagels states that the same theological opinion as Coogan's is part of the Judeo-Christian tradition (to put it bluntly, Gnostics were Christians). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I presume that if there are sources stating that Elohim is both male & female - it is likely they are responding to other sources which say this is not the case? Do any WP:RS's along those lines exist? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pagels clearly states that God is mostly seen as male in the Judeo-Christian tradition (and that is what our Wikipedia article states, as abiding by WP:DUE), she also states that there are exceptions from this rule, one being an interpretation of Gen. 1:26-27. She is non-judgmental about this interpretation, she reports it as a fact about a notable theological opinion. Considering her whole article, she agrees with the idea that God was sometimes seen as female. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there are sources which state that the image and likeness of God is male but not female, I frankly don't know, but interpreting the Bible literally this would be a bizarre position (even more bizarre that God is both male and female, since the later does not contradict the letter of the Bible). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand that God being male and female is offending some religious sensibilities, but we are not censored for their protection. The really offensive stance would be that the image and likeness of God is male but not female, since it would offend both religious sensibilities and human reason in general (which can examine what is written in the Bible regardless of the religious persuasion of the reader). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Tgeorgescu. I guess I was just sounding out whether Nomnompuff's edit was indicative of a broader dispute which might warrant inclusion or explanation - as opposed to what happened (i.e. an unsourced WP:OR edit). Anyway, Nomnompuff doesn't seem particularly active on this talk page at the moment, so I'm happy to wait a bit longer to see if they want to chat/clarify things further, otherwise it looks reasonably straight forward from my perspective. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On one hand Coogan's view smacks of propaganda for liberal Christianity (as fundamentalists see mainstream Biblical scholarship as a Satanic plot for propagating liberal Christianity); on the other hand its opposite stance cuts against the grain of the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I just saw that Nomnompuffs has had a ban imposed, so that probably explains the lack of response. I'll keep an eye out over the next few days. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's sort this out: the image and likeness of the Elohim are male and female. Who are then the Elohim? Yahweh (definitely male) and Asherah (definitely female). You see, the Ancient Hebrews worshiped a god and a goddess (among a plurality of other gods whose existence they admitted), only later polytheism evolved into monolatry and then into monotheism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure[edit]

There was a sharp break between ancient Israelite religion and the Judaism of the Second Temple.[1] Pre-exilic Israel was polytheistic;[2] Asherah was probably worshiped as Yahweh's consort, within his temples in Jerusalem, Bethel, and Samaria, and a goddess called the Queen of Heaven, probably a fusion of Astarte and the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar, was also worshiped.[3] Baal and Yahweh coexisted in the early period, but were considered irreconcilable after the 9th century.[4] The worship of Yahweh alone, the concern of a small party in the monarchic period, only gained ascendancy in the exilic and early post-exilic period,[2] and it was only then that the very existence of other gods was denied.[5]

Copy/paste from Second Temple Judaism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I think there's a problem here. According to our article:
Genesis 1:26-27 says that the elohim were male and female,[2] and humans were made in their image.[4]
But Genesis 1:26-27 doesn't "say" that God/elohim were male and female. At most this is an inference -- and a questionable one at best.
What Gen 1:27 actually says is "God/elohim created (singular) the human in his (masculine singlular) image; in the image of God/elohim he created (singular) him; male and female he created (singular) them".
Gen 1:26 is analysed in our article Elohim.
It's an interesting conjecture that Gen 1:26 may contain an echo of an earlier wider pantheon, but by no means a necessary one, and, I would submit, not a consensus view. Jheald (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Genesis 1 does not "say" elohim were male and female (or that elohim is plural for that matter, the plural form is clearly used throughout the Hebrew Bible to refer to the one singular God); nor is Herzog's view that Yahweh and Asherah were the "most worshiped" gods a consensus view. I have removed the paragraph as not reflective of consensus, while discussion is under way here. Melcous (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both Elaine Pagels and Michael Coogan agree there is something masculine and feminine about God in Gen 1:26. If it is not the consensus view, it could be attributed to them. Also, Gesenius is a 19th century scholar, while Pagels, Coogan and Herzog reached into the 21st century. Herzog does not deny that other gods were worshiped, but most germane were Yahweh and Asherah, perhaps not "most worshiped". Also, the view that the Hebrew Bible has conserved remnants of polytheistic myths is by no means WP:FRINGE. There is an edx.org course from Bar Ilan University which makes that clear. Initially, Elohim meant El (god) and his children (gods). Later, Yahweh had cannibalized El and Baal, but still had Asherah as his wife. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the "God of Abraham"... If El was the high God of Abraham—Elohim, the prototype of Yahveh—Asherah was his wife, and there are archaeological indications that she was perceived as such before she was in effect "divorced" in the context of emerging Judaism of the 7th century BCE. (See 2 Kings 23:15.)[6]

Copy/paste from El (deity). So, arguing that a 19th century source trumps multiple WP:RS from the 21st century is quite a weak argument, according to WP:RULES. What I would like to see are multiple WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholarship sources from the 21st century which deny Coogan's and Pagel's view. Of course, evangelical scholars will never agree with any theologically heterodox view, so I will discard such sources. If all they do is rubber-stamping biblical inerrancy, I don't think highly of such scholars and generally speaking they aren't mainstream, with the exception from [1]. In their view, whatever Ivy Plus teach about the Bible is from the Devil. Evangelical scholars would say that Jews were (with certain partial lapses) monotheists since Abraham. Which, by our book, is a WP:FRINGE view.
So, there were more gods that Yahweh and Asherah? Fine, I have no problem with that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought the most relevant thing for this article is the plain meaning of Gen 1:27 -- that women as well as men were created b'tselem elohim, in the image of God; so (according to the text) the characteristics of all humanity are reflections of God.
It seems disingenuous to me to bracket Pagels together with Coogan in this discussion. Their theses are quite different. Pagels explores gnostic ideas of God "as a dyadic being, who consists of both masculine and feminine elements" -- a single entity, with aspects of maleness and aspects of femaleness. This is quite a contrast to Coogan's proposal of a specific god and goddess couple.
A second question is what may be understood by the "image" of God. You seem determined to read it in physical terms. This is naive. After all, this is a text that talks of "the breath of God" moving over the face of the waters. The JPS Commentary on Genesis (Sarna, 1989) has an almost page-long discussion noting that the image/likeness language is a standard formula found in texts across Mesopotamia, Assyria, and Egypt where monarchs are described as being "the image" or "the likeness" of a god -- even gods of non-human form. It asserts a dominance and a mastery, a setting up above over the rest of creation, feeding straight into the next verse. "While he is not divine, his very existence bears withness to the activity of God in the world. This awareness inevitably entails an awesome responsibility and imposes a code of living that conforms with the consciousness of that fact." The difference in Genesis is that it is mankind that is being described as being the image of God, rather than a monarch.
Similarly in the commentary by Plaut (2005) the words emphasise "the Torah's abiding wonder over our special status in Creation, over our unique intellectual capacity, which bears the imprint of the Creator. This likeness also describes our moral potential. Our nature is radically different from God's, but we are capable of approaching God's actions: divine love, divine mercy, divine justice. Our likeness to the Divine has a third and most important meaning. It stresses the essential holiness, and, by implication, the dignity of all humanity, without distinction."
It's also worth noting that the early chapters of Genesis, and Genesis 1 in particular, are often now argued to be late compositions, dating specifically from the Exilic period -- a period in which the Israelite conception of God had become much more universalist, less local; and more abstract, less corporeal. This would mitigate against Cooper's thesis of a strong Canaanite inheritance in the text.
Finally I think we misrepresent Cooper in the previously current text. He doesn't say that "Genesis 1:26-27 says that the elohim were male and female", rather he says that he is presenting this as an alternative interpretation, at variance with the traditional translation. I don't have a problem with us presenting this as Cooper's suggestion, together if you like with his further suggestion that the model could "more likely" then be "Yahweh and his goddess companion", rather the whole pantheon. But it should not be presented as a consensus fact; indeed, per WP:DUE, it should not be given more prominence than it has been received with in secondary and tertiary overviews. Jheald (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have performed the change. Coogan does say that Asherah could mean (i) Yahweh's wife or (ii) Yahweh's ritual pole, but that all these available mainstream interpretations are equally heretical to the theological orthodoxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the "hint" is WP:UNDUE - the section is titled 'In the Hebrew and Christian Bible'. Why does this belong in this article and this section, which is not about the history of religion? Melcous (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that God=god+goddess wouldn't be germane to this article? Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any comment about what I do and don't think is germane to the article as a whole. The section under discussion is about the Hebrew and Christian Bible (text), and the current inclusion is one scholar's view on what his interpretation of a word in that text "hints" at about the practice of religion in a particular era. That seems like a stretch to include in this particular section, whether or not it could or should be included anywhere else. Melcous (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you suggest another section? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

References

  1. ^ Moore & Kelle 2011, p. 449.
  2. ^ a b Albertz 1994a, p. 61.
  3. ^ Ackerman 2003, p. 395.
  4. ^ Smith 2002, p. 47.
  5. ^ Betz 2000, p. 917.
  6. ^ Leeming, David (2005). The Oxford Companion to World Mythology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-19-515669-0. LCCN 2005014216. OCLC 60492027.

Gender of God or gods[edit]

I made an edit here for the lead to begin:

The gender of God, or of gods, can be viewed as a literal or as an allegorical aspect of a deity or of deities.

This was on the basis that the lead continues:

In polytheistic religions, the gods are more likely to have literal sexual genders which would enable them to interact with each other, and even with humans, in a sexual way.

And that a whole section is dedicated to: Gender_of_God#Hinduism within which there are many gods.

The edit was reverted by Jheald on the claim that "this article is specifically about monotheistic conceptions of God" which is not the case in regard to Hinduism. Is there a route to clarification?

GregKaye 13:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gender of God. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in Islam - Allah Gender[edit]

Dear Editors this part is totally incorrect , God (Allah) is genderless and the reference to Him as He, is just the nature of Arabic, we refer to the moon as He and the sun as She, etc. the pronoun "Hiya" is not mentioned in Sura Ikhlas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu aamir (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s god a woman or man[edit]

Women 2600:8803:C203:400:2D55:40C5:97C2:7E34 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

Gender of God is 2401:4900:3B20:C612:EA08:3DA2:8157:1657 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the gender is generally referred to in the singular in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Gender[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 28 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marsbell (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Zisha68 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender of God[edit]

About the gender of God. I was looking at something else on the internet and I came across this topic that whoever is in charge of Wikipedia is wrong! God is not a female he was never a mother! Deuteronomy 32:18 says of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful and have forgotten the God who fathered you. That's what Deuteronomy 32:18 says! It does not say he is as a mother in that verse according to the words of Wikipedia! I have studied the Bible since 2006 and I continue to study it twice daily, every day and I have been a Christian for 18 years and I attend my church on a regular basis, but God was never a mother he is always a father, a male not a female! Just thought I clear that up for everybody! So do not mistaken God as a female or as a mother he is all three Trinities of the person within him; in other words he is God the Father, he is Jesus Christ as Son, and is the Holy Spirit all in one person! But he was never a mother or even acted as a mother! He is all male through and through! 73.177.183.196 (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Christian and studying the Bible does not give you special editing rights. Unless you read the Bible in Koine Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Coptic, Syriac and know your Aramaic, you're not in the same league with the Bible professors we WP:CITE in this article. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_of_God&oldid=1221299675"