Why is God always referred to as 'He'...

Originally posted by mikelom
and not 'She' or 'It'?
It is an ultimate entity, if it exists.

And why can't it be a 'She', just as much a 'He', for that matter?

Female comments are openly invited, so as for unsexist analogies to run a matter of true course. 😉

-m.

====================================
and not 'She' or 'It'?
It is an ultimate entity, if it exists.

And why can't it be a 'She', just as much a 'He', for that matter?

Female comments are openly invited, so as for unsexist analogies to run a matter of true course
================================

God is really the ONLY "He" in all existence. All other creation must receive the seed of life from God.

I told you or somebody before that the word picture in Hebrew in Genesis 17:1 is of a Big Breasted One. That is a female picture.

El Shadai the one with big breast, a big udder, or generally large mammary glands

- "And when Abram was ninety-nine years old, Jehovah appeared to Abram and said to him,

I am the All-sufficient God; Walk before me, and be perfect."

One of a number of feminine word pictures or analogies in the Bible to God even though God is called "He" throughout the Bible.

Originally posted by Palynka
Because Hebrew has no gender neutral pronouns and the translations continued the male gender form.

Bumped for truth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not convinced Agers, no middle earth, no evidence.

Not so convinced about your claims of magic neither, no talking serpents, no magic fruits, no zombie `sons of "God"', no twinkle dust, no evidence

Originally posted by Agerg
Not so convinced about your claims of magic neither, no talking serpents, no magic fruits, no zombie `sons of "God"', no twinkle dust, no evidence

my faith has works, it helps people, how does your faith help people?

Originally posted by josephw
Because, dunderhead, that's how [b]He refers to Himself.

For crying out loud! Don't any of you atheists understand anything?[/b]

So your god requires a penis?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my faith has works, it helps people, how does your faith help people?

That does not constitute evidence for your god.

Originally posted by Agerg
That does not constitute evidence for your god.

nope, but it validates the tenets of my religion.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, but it validates the tenets of my religion.

No it doesn't - some other holy book could suggest that people behave like d***heads to people; and so long as there are gits in the world then they could equally well say that the tenets of *their* religion are validated.

Originally posted by Agerg
No it doesn't - some other holy book could suggest that people behave like d***heads to people; and so long as there are gits in the world then they could equally well say that the tenets of *their* religion are validated.

Ahh dear Agers if it were only that simple for you, but alas alas, please note the
beautiful yet profound illustration of the Christ in this regard,

(Matthew 7:17-18)  Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree
produces worthless fruit;  a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten
tree produce fine fruit. . .

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, but it validates the tenets of my religion.

But robbie... I wrote a thread about faith last week..

Thread 138979

How does faith VALIDATE a religion vs an atheist's faith?

-m.

Edit: Your response was a wise and cultured one in that post of yours, but here the same usage is unfounded?

Originally posted by mikelom
But robbie... I wrote a thread about faith last week..

Thread 138979

How does faith VALIDATE a religion vs an atheist's faith?

-m.

Edit: Your response was a wise and cultured one in that post of yours, but here the same usage is unfounded?

is not the atheist also a man? or a women? are they not also born with an innate
sense of justice? and are they not incensed when it is transgressed by some mean
act? Are they not also endowed with a conscience and thus are able to distinguish
between right and wrong? Do they not also thrive upon love and appreciation, as a
flower does the sunlight? Then what is the difference? Is it not that the atheist has
sought to establish his own, for he truly believes that there is naught but the mind
and its evaluation? whereas the theist is not the originator of his faith, merely a
recipient and a messenger of it? Herein is the difference, for we are seeking not to
establish our own, but that of someone else and have placed ourselves under
another's authority respecting that sovereignty, whereas the atheist, apart from the
laws of the land, is an authority to none other than himself? or herself as the matter
may be? It is a human vision, and as a consequence will contain those human
elements which are at once both brilliant and imaginative but also limited in scope
and prone to aberration, for the life of a man is but seventy or eighty years and his
experience limited. One can ask, what sort of works will his faith produce? what
are its principles and tenets and its not an easy question to answer, for as was
mentioned , we are one and the same, yet individuals, even as the snowflakes from
the heavens are and with so many different worlds its hard to say anything other
than it shall be human in outlook. The Bible counsels, to his own master a man will
stand or fall, and thus it is with any religious or atheistic expression, yet its in this
tendency of expression, i think its worth can be evaluated, for what else is there?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
nope, but it validates the tenets of my religion.

How would that “vindicate” the specific tenet that “there is a god” ?
Agerg is correct in his assertion that that “does not constitute evidence for your god. “
if a delusion in some sense 'helps' people by, say, making them happier, is that evidence or any other kind of “vindication” of that delusional belief?

If, hypothetically, belief in the tooth fairy actually helped billions of people to overcome grief and makes everyone live happier lives and feel that their lives have more meaning etc, would that “vindicate” the belief or be evidence for the belief that there exists a tooth fairy and, if so, how?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
How would that “vindicate” the specific tenet that “there is a god” ?
Agerg is correct in his assertion that that “does not constitute evidence for your god. “
if a delusion in some sense 'helps' people by, say, making them happier, is that evidence or any other kind of “vindication” of that delusional belief?

If, hypothetically, belief in the ...[text shortened]... ate” the belief or be evidence for the belief that there exists a tooth fairy and, if so, how?

no one is saying that the tenets vindicate that there is a God Meester Hameelton,
although an argument could be made for it, both you and I know that I cannot prove
there is a God and you cannot prove that there is not, all such arguments are utterly
futile. Now Meester Hamiltin you know what happened to the first leetle peeg when he
built his house of straw? that correct, the big bad wolf came along and blew it down.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no one is saying that the tenets vindicate that there is a God Meester Hameelton,
although an argument could be made for it, both you and I know that I cannot prove
there is a God and you cannot prove that there is not, all such arguments are utterly
futile. Now Meester Hamiltin you know what happened to the first leetle peeg when he
built his house of straw? that correct, the big bad wolf came along and blew it down.

“...no one is saying that the tenets vindicate that there is a God ...”

isn't one of your tenets “there is a god”?
don't you ever lecture to us that weshould believe that there is a 'God'?

“...I cannot prove there is a God and you cannot prove that there is not ...”

and you and I cannot prove there is no teacup orbiting Mars and that doesn't change the fact that the belief that a teacup is orbiting Mars is an irrational belief and irrational because there is no evidence (let alone proof) for such a thing existing.
-the belief that there is a god is an irrational belief for exactly the same reason.
Not being able to prove something does not exist would be a pretty stupid reason for believing that it exists (I am not trying to imply here that that is the reason why you believe that there is a god ) .

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...no one is saying that the tenets vindicate that there is a God ...”

then what you said was irrelevant.

“...I cannot prove there is a God and you cannot prove that there is not ...”

and you and I cannot prove there is no teacup orbiting Mars and that doesn't change the fact that the belief that a teacup is orbiting Mars is an irrational b ...[text shortened]... (I am not trying to imply here that that is the reason why you believe that there is a god ) .

its just nonsense Andrew, look, this forum is for spirituality, will you contribute
something to that for once, i dont care what it is, ideas of flying tea cups, tooth fairies
etc are old and hackneyed, give it up for goodness sake or post it in general. So what
if you think its irrational, so what if it cannot be proven? The teaching of Christianity
exists and is knowable and applicable irrespective of whether you think it irrational or
not or whether it can be proven that there is a God or not, why you fail to grasp this
simple premise is quite beyond me.