Login/Sign Up




Can You Prove that "God" is a "He"?
Supernatural

teachme
Oct 08, 2009
9 votes
16 debaters
4
2
1
1


+ Add Argument

1
Yes


bookworm
Oct 09, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
To start off with, God, as a spirit, technically doesn't have a gender. However, Jesus was born as a male human, not a female.
Secondly, in the Bible, His revelation of Himself, He is always referred to in the male form. 'Father' 'Son', etc. Always male. I think this is because, biblically, the male is the leader. But that's a different argument.
As a Christian, I think it's entirely ridiculous to even argue about whether God is male. Every single part of the Bible shows that God wants to reveal Himself as 'male' as far as that goes. If you don't believe in the God of the Bible, then you can make up any god you want. I don't care what you think about it then. But if you refer to the Christian God, He is always referred to as male.

 
ryvius
Oct 08, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
What? Can you prove that "Goddess" is a "She"?

 
scarleta
Oct 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: obviouschild Show

Not very pc are we?

 
kaleb
Feb 12, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Of course God is male. and of course He is female.
for those of you who will accept the bible, does it not say;
And Elohim (which is plural without gender) said,"Let us make man(kind) in our image." And [Elohim] created them, MALE and FEMALE he created them.
od is neither neither nor either male n/or female, God is male and female. Thats not an extravagant exegesis, thats just what it says.

For those of you who do not accept the bible, consider the natural balance of the universe. do we not see male and female forms? if it is possible for us to know God, it must be through the understanding that we gain through interaction with the universe. if we see that the universe requires male and female forms, would we not also say that God, the subject of the potrait of the universe, has both male and female forms?

Im hesitant to agree with a person that strikes me as a fundamentalist, but in closing i suppose i would agree with the statement that if you want to make up a god, then you can give it whatever gender you want, and if you choose to follow someone else's god, then you have to either accept their god as they give it to you, or you have to make up your own mind without difference to what other people think.

 
kaleb
Feb 13, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sexto Show

i would like for you to suppose, hypothetically, that there is a tribe of amazonian women living together in a jungle without any men. they have normal life spans, and there are no men.
"now wait a minute," you say,"if there are no men, then how do they reproduce?"
thus even in a situation which has not been proven to be true, we can consider whether the situation taken hypothetically is sustainable and consistent. this is all we mean when we discuss the nature of God. we certainly are not demanding you to accept the existence of God as a given.

let us consider for a moment the Taoist tradition. the Tao is one, but necessarily from the presence of the One Tao comes to be the Above and Below, left and right, light and dark, male and female. if you consider male and female to refer merely to the presence or absence of a penis or a vagina (which are both medical terms, so i hope they are allowed on this site) or the presence or absence of ovaries or testes, then i suppose you can say that God, whose presence is asserted to exist without physical form, cannot by definition be male or female. if, however, you understand male and female to be the opposite and complimentary forms necessary for the creative process to take place then God must necessarily exhibit both characteristics or else God would be unable to be creative at all, and therefore couldn't really be called God. this is also consistent within the Judeo-Christian understanding of God who exists in a trinitarian form in which there is both an influencer, one who is influenced, and the nature of the influencing. in human biological terms, there is the fertilizer, that which is fertilized, and the nature arising from the interaction of the two.

In summation, God is the reciprocal of God's self, and the form arising from that reciprocation. therefore, God encompasses both what we call male and what we call female. if, as an aside, you regard male and female only in a physical biological sense, then the whole thing is ridiculous, but i think you would be missing out on a rather beautiful picture of harmony, and that would be sad.

 
serejka
Mar 15, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Look,
God created man IN HIS IMAGE.
God created women FROM ADAM'S RIB
If man was made in God's image and if God is not genderless, then God is a man.

 
serejka
Mar 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: againstthecurrents Show

The Bible is the most influential text of Christianity, and it should be seen as a representation of God's word. The Bible shouldn't be taken completely literaly, but it does have a fair amount of history mixed in.

 
serejka
Mar 17, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: againstthecurrents Show

As I mentioned earlier, some parts of the Bible are not to be interpreted literally.
This passage, if taken as a metaphor, clearly states that women came from men.
Even if the Bible IS meant to be taken literally, however, taht does not weaken my argument - who's to say what God can or cannot do? Do you honestly think that after creating the entire World, with all of its flora and fauna, in seven days, he couldn't turn a rib into a woman?

 
serejka
Mar 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: againstthecurrents Show

Your argument doesn't rebut mine.
If the passage about Adam and Eve is taken literally, then Woman LITERALLY came from man.
If it is taken metaphorically, then woman STILL came from man.
Even though the Bible can be vague and confusing at times, it really doesn't matter in what way you interpret this message - it's meaning is crystal clear.

 
serejka
Mar 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: againstthecurrents Show

And, once again, it's kind of hard to interpret God using Adam's rib to make a woman incorrectly. I think that this passage is quite straightforward. Whether it was geared towards a patriarchal society or not, the Bible is the closest thing we have now of God's word, so it should be used as the primary source for any such theological questions.

 
serejka
Mar 19, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: againstthecurrents Show

You are saying that we should simply ignore the countless times that God is referred to as "He" in the Bible.
You're saying that this was only the case because the society was a patriarchal one and valued men much higher than women.

How exactly can you claim to know what the Bible was trying to say? How can discard the numerous times that God is mentioned as a he, by simply stating that this was aimed at the people living in this time? By saying that the Bible was modified to be accepted by the masses, you discredit it's integrity.

By questioning it, by saying that "He" was only a teaching tool, you are making an unproven comment that goes directly against what the Bible says. The Bible is, I repeat, the closest thing that we have to God on the Earth, and to interpret it's passages based solely on your whims would not only be foolish, but insolent.

If we are to use the Bible as a reference when speaking of Christianity, you cannot simply say that what is written in it is "a teaching tool" and manipulate the passages to fit your own ends.

The title of this debate is - "Can you prove that God is a "He"?" not "Is God a man?". I do not believe that God is a man in the sense of the word that we use - simply that men are a weaker, paler imitation of God. To say that he is a "He" would be an understatement, because he created US in his image, not the other way around. We are trying to fit him into one of the only two categories of people that we know - man and woman.

God is not only "man" but much more than that. He is the "true" man, while we are simply copies, and women are, in a way, copies of us.

I am not saying that men are superior to women because of this ( I am completely against sexism), simply that men were made closer to God's image than women were, as shown by the passage in Genesis.

 
serejka
Mar 20, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: matt1989 Show

I'm not saying that you have to believe that everything that the Bible says is true.
However, it is the representation of God's message to all humans and must be taken into account when debating anything to do with Him.

 
+ Add Argument

8
No


obviouschild
Oct 08, 2009
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ryvius Show

Absolutely.

Ever help a guy move into an apartment? Basically where you put furniture down is where it stays until that guy moves out.

Ever help a gal move into an apartment? That furniture is lucky to stay put for more then a few hours.

Now, look at the Celestial heavens. Now, what kind of male God would that that much stuff constantly moving? Seriously. Not even a metrosexual male God would do that.

Therefore, God must be a woman.

 
apathetic
Oct 09, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
This debate assumes that you can prove God is.

 
sexto
Jan 25, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Of course not. What a ridiculous question. How can you prove something is male if you can't even prove it exists? Now even if we ignore this extremely blatant oversight there is also the belief that god is singular. one god. There would be no such thing as gender if there was no reciprocal gender. You can't have a male without a female. And that also implies copulation. This question is both moot and ridiculous.

 
jonjax71
Oct 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Not only can god's gender not be proven-although if there is a god as traditionally described, the entity would not have a gender

 
pgandal
Oct 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: bookworm Show

Well your argument only works if you accept a literal interpretation of the bible. Even the ultra-dogmatic Roman Catholic Church doesn't support that kind of reading of Genesis (god created man in his image, etc). While I'm sure those same theologians would defend referring to god as he or him, it seems stupid to arbitrarily assert "well those aren't necessarily to be taken literally, but these other ones are." Especially when talking about something as trivial as the "gender" of god. Who cares?

The only thing that makes a male as such is physical and biochemical traits. Without a body or literal brain, it would be weird to identify with a particular sex.

If god did create man in his image, why do all fetuses begin as female and then diversify? Wouldn't it be the other way around?

 
sexto
Feb 13, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: kaleb Show

You make a good point when you said that we can argue the validity of one question based on the hypothetical truth of a given situation, and I regret answering how I did. The point I was trying to make however is still mostly the same, which comes to the real crux of the question- "prove". To prove that God is both male and female or one or the other.

Let us go back to your hypothetical Amazonian women. The question "how do they reproduce" could only be asked after first proving that they do reproduce. Could you possibly *prove* how they reproduce, without first proving that they do? The answer, of course, is no. At the very least you would be proving them at the same time- if you were to prove how they reproduce, then you would be proving that they do. We can infer, guess, hypothesize all we want based on the assumption that they do, but the 'how' could not be *proven* before the fact. Perhaps the question that would really be asked would be- "do they reproduce?" which we could then set out to prove, before we tackled the question of how.

As to your closing statement, I hope you do not feel sad for me when I say that I only regard male and female in a physical biological sense, because this in itself is the beautiful picture you'd think I'm missing out on. It is truly amazing and beautiful that the world is how it is now due to copulation of plants and animals respectively.


 
againstthecurrents
Mar 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
This is silly. I guess there are two answers,

1) Yes, I can prove a god is a he. Zeus was a "he" and he was considered a god. Done.
2) No. Assigning gender to God is simply a way for humans to understand "symbolize, humanize" something they cannot such as infinity with the sideways 8. The bible uses "He" because God was supposed to be the supreme ruler, and the ancient societies were based in Patriarchial structures. The bible uses many metaphors of family units to assist humans in ultimately understanding that which cannot be understood, "or else we challenge God" which is what leads to faith.

 
againstthecurrents
Mar 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

If you believe the bible is a literal historical account, or an apocryphal narrative with some history mixed in, but whose goal is not to give an accurate historical record but convince people into faith.

 
againstthecurrents
Mar 17, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

And I am assuming then that "God" literally opening Adam up, plucking out a rib, and sticking it in his Eve doll brought her to life?
I mean, that's the literal history part?
As opposed to Jewish territorial conquests over the canaanites and such.

 
againstthecurrents
Mar 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

You can't pick and chose which parts of the bible you want to take literally or not. If you don't literally think God made the earth in 7 days like the bible says then you shouldn't believe that the use of "he" is any more convincing than the lamb with 100 eyes in Revelations.
The bible was geared toward a patriarchial society and used heavy metaphors to get the message out, whether it be the family unit or clovers like St. Patrick.

 
againstthecurrents
Mar 18, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

ugh...

again,
The bible was geared toward a patriarchial society and used heavy metaphors to get the message out, whether it be the family unit or clovers like St. Patrick.


 
aceofspades25
Mar 19, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

I think I have to agree with AgainstTheCurrent on this one. You're taking the whole rib thing far too seriously. If you're going to take the accomodationist view and not read that part of the bible literally, then you might as well believe that some sort of directed evolution occured.

In this case, man clearly came from woman who came from woman who came from woman ... who came from non-sexual biological life form.

 
againstthecurrents
Mar 19, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

Last time, then I let my argument be interpreted by others.
The Bible uses heavy metaphors in order to teach it's lessons.
It is an apocryphal book which includes traditions from Judaism/the Torah
like the "garden of eden" and the New Testament.
The book was written in Hebrew translated to Kione Greek, then Latin.

When you read the bible there are stars or * next to some passages.
That is because biblical scholars trace to authenticity of such phrases
to the time they were written in a religious/sociological exercise to determine
what rating to give them.
This is because not every passage is - as presumably authentic -

The "He" is a teaching tool.
"He" is a metaphor just like the Dragon in Revelations.
The authors gave God a human gender ,"separate from biological sex"
as --symbolic-- of the male dominated society those listening to the
stores lived in.

By assigning God a human socially constructed gender people could better
understand their relationship to God, as his children, and for men sons, "prophets".
Women were second class citizen who held little tangible powers,
it would have been confusing if Jesus "the son" attempted to describe the
creator, that of the Old Testament, as "She".

The metaphor would not have made sense.

 
matt1989
Mar 20, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
how true is the Bible?

 
againstthecurrents
Mar 20, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

"Last time, then I let my argument be interpreted by others."

 
matt1989
Mar 20, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

how true is the Bible?


 
dumbass
Jul 02, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I'm not an atheist but I don't believe in "God". I do believe that there is something greater than us with much power but I do not believe in a human up there wearing a white robe with a white beard and a halo above him. God is not a he or she and is bound to be something greater than just a person up there making miracles. I also believe that heaven and hell are just illusions that we have created. Heaven and hell is basically a reference to going somewhere better or worst depending on what you deserve. But I also think that everybody derves a second chance and therefor a person who lives a bad life will reincarnate and try to do better. If a person has lived their life well then they should move to a better place. But I doubt it will be a place where you will have robes and wings and halos and such. Just somewhere better. My point is that I highly doubt a man/woman has the almighty power, for there should be something greater than our being (:

 
rupus
Jul 21, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If God existed, as "he" is depicted as being everything and everywhere, God would be genderless. "He" is a word used because saying "it" would be disrespectful. Perhaps the Christian image of God is male, at least to the majority of people, but this debate is about "God" in general, not necessarily the Christian god. Furthermore, I find it amusing that people are arguing over whether or not there is proof that God is male, when there is no proof that God exists at all. I realize that whomever created this debate was probably referring to the Christian god and the gender roles displayed in the Christian bible, but that should have been stated to begin with.
Good day.

 
trona
Oct 17, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
God created man

God has no gender.

It's something hard to grasp because either your male or female. We've never seen anyone who is not male nor female(Gays are still male). Then again we've never seen physically seen God. God is not a physical being. Jesus however is a physical being. He is one part man one part God. Hear that... One part MAN, one part God. Man is not God otherwise Jesus would be Man with no God. God is something entirely different, a spirit.

Also folks, this is not a debate on weather God exists at all, so please if you want to talk about weather God exists or not go somewhere else. Thanks

 
trona
Oct 17, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: serejka Show

Who was Jesus

Part Man, Part God.



 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

aliens ghosts god religion supernatural