Is there a Mrs. God ?

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
You say that "He" is or neither gender.

Perhaps we should consider the possibility that "He" may have created the heavens and the earth, but Mother Nature decorated it.

Mixing two different religions on that one. I say He because most people wouldn't understand an English gender neutral term since there aren't any. Two that I was a fan of though were "Hir" for him/her and "Sie" for s/he. We're too bent on tradition to consider saying things like "it's Hir universe, sie created it."

Lol of course God has a Gender and a Body read revelations chapter 4 God sits on the throne between 24 elders. He hold a scroll in his RIGHT HAND. showing he has a Body. second he is a male. God is called the father. there for being man. God can not be a father if he is a women. or has not gender.

If God created man in " His " image, then where did "He" find the inspiration for the form of a women?

Originally posted by slymattb
Lol of course God has a Gender and a Body read revelations chapter 4 God sits on the throne between 24 elders. He hold a scroll in his RIGHT HAND. showing he has a Body. second he is a male. God is called the father. there for being man. God can not be a father if he is a women. or has not gender.

Is God planning on reproducing? With who and why?

So what many of you are saying is that God doesn't NEED a female counterpart in his life.

I still think this assumption goes against every law of nature.

I suspect that something very important is missing from what we have been told.

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
So what many of you are saying is that God doesn't NEED a female counterpart in his life.

I think God doesn't NEED anything, including a personal gender.

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I still think this assumption goes against every law of nature.

Who created nature? Do the laws of earth apply to heaven? According to the Bible, obviously not.

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
I suspect that something very important is missing from what we have been told.

I'm sure there's a lot we don't know. I think it's more important to understand what we have been told though.

what saint4God said is true. God probley does'nt need anyone. But he wants people to love and worship him, knowing he has love to give. Just because God has a gender does not mean he useing his body to repordice in the way we do. Why would God need mary( how was so holy to have his kid by not have sex yet) if he had a women with him. Haveing Jesus born through mary probley shows that God has no wife. Or counter part. But end the end we dont know if God has a female counter part. But most likey not. He would have no need of mary. And fallen God is all knowing and powerfully the reason God made female genesis 2 v 18 and the lord God said, it is not good that man should be alone, i will make a help meet for him. 22- 25 God's creats women, because it is not good for man to be alone.

Genesis 1 v 27 So God created MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD CREATED HE HIM. This scripture proof that God created man like him. not women but man.

Exactly!

The problem for me is who exactly told us which parts and who left out certain information and why.

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Exactly!
The problem for me is who exactly told us which parts and who left out certain information and why.

I dont understand what your asking.

It's one thing to understand what we were told, but shouldn't we also consider the possibility that what we have been told might have been slanted a bit by the church leadership as they saw fit?

I would like very much to believe that the men who authored the world's various Holy Scriptures did so without any misguided perceptions or unfavorable influence, but I simply can not trust mankind to be so worthy.

It IS quite remarkable how many texts agree when cross referencing certain historical events, but trusting these texts blindly without questioning certain motives of organized religion seems foolish.

I see your point, and thats why we have faith that God is in control of everthing that happens. Thats why I read not just one type of Bible I read KJV mostly because the word are more beatifully layed out. But i read NIV, new american and others.

But we have to believe man of God wrote the bible, men who had the spirit of God wrote the bible. We have to believe god was in control of scriptures to brying to us. Thats why there is faith. You got understand the scriptures can not be change because there is so many of them.

Originally posted by slymattb
what saint4God said is true. God probley does'nt need anyone. But he wants people to love and worship him, knowing he has love to give.

Woot! Thank you. I think you've got a lot of great things to say too.

Originally posted by slymattb
Just because God has a gender

Whoa hey! Alrighty, I think we're going to disagree here and that's fine. Do you want to ask God when we get there or should I? I know what'll happen, God will take the one who's right first just so one of us will be standing there with hands on the hips going "Nya nya, I told you so!" when the other shows up. Hehe, I could see that. What a fun way to kick off eternity. Let's both try to keep an open mind so that we're not dictating what's not written.

Side-note: Listen to your church, consider, but also come to your own conclussion based not only on what they say, but what is written, and what God Himself is telling you.

May love, faith, and hope be with you always,
God bless.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by saint4God]

So what you think God has a wife or consort??? Then why did he need mary. God has a Body we know that fromrevealtion chapter 4. He needed mary so God can have a pure off spring. Why would he need mary if he had a consort. Second if your saying God might not be male, God is Called father. Cant be a father if you are a female or have no gender.

How would someone attempt to explain artificial insemination more than 2000 years ago?

Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree

How would someone attempt to explain artificial insemination more than 2000 years ago?

There are many people who still wonder if there's much more than we have been told.

We surely are not the only " civilized" beings in the entire universe.

We must consider the possibility that any superior entity would have been regarded as
a God in that era.

But then who is the God of ALL creation? Our God and their God as well?

There is no doubt in my mind that the Holy Scriptures were written as guidebooks to humanity
but they were written with the influence of a perceived reality.

Reading through some of the ancient Sumerian texts reveals that the planet Pluto was already known
to them although we were not able to see it until 75 years ago.

So many ancient text were destroyed or hidden because they did not agree with the churches perception
or plan.

I am not questioning the existence of God, but merely questioning man's perception of fact given what
was regarded as fact 2000 years ago.

I dout that happens too much. But you never know. What is proven as fact is proven by evidents now in days. But things happens.

Why would God need Mary?

Excellent question.

Why does a childless couple choose a surrogate mother?

This actually explains how Mary could have conceived the Christ Child
without a husband, but it also poses some very interesting questions
about the possibile use of far advanced technology long before we
were able to do so with modern medicine.

I am trying to understand you statement. Are you saying God and his female counter part need mary. Because my point is God most likely does not have a counter part. He would not need mary. tech back in days was not that good at all.

Originally posted by slymattb
So what you think God has a wife or consort??? Then why did he need mary. God has a Body we know that fromrevealtion chapter 4. He needed mary so God can have a pure off spring. Why would he need mary if he had a consort. Second if your saying God might not be male, God is Called father. Cant be a father if you are a female or have no gender.

First off one has to be careful when stating that something in the Bible is to be taken figuratively or literally; the Hebrew god is described in various ways within the Bible. There is mention of God's feet (Psalm 18:9), arms (Jeremiah 27:5), wings (Psalm 36:7), hands (Job 27:11), eyes (Deuteronomy 8:3), mouth (Isaiah 1:20), ears (2 Chronicles 6:40), nostrils (Exodus 15:8) and legs (Genesis 3:8), but should these really be taken as serious physical descriptions or should they be taken as writing devices to help describe an emotion or thought? Secondly there is an obvious reason why the God of Christianity needed Mary:

Quetzalcoatl was birthed when his mother took a small feather that had fallen from the sky by placing it upon her womb

Pharaoh Amenkept was birthed by Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt

Horus was said to be the parthenogenetic child of the Virgin Mother, Isis

Ra was said to have been born of a virgin mother Net and had no father

Attis, the Phrygian god, was said to be the son of the virgin Nana, who conceived him by putting in her bosom a ripe almond or pomegranate

Dionysos, the Grecian God, was said to be the son of Zeus of the virgin goddess Persephone

Jason, who was slain by Zeus, was said to have been another son of the virgin Persephone, and to have had no father, neither human nor divine

Perseus was also said to have been born of a virgin mother

Buddha Gautama was birthed by Maya, who many believed was an immaculate virgin who conceived him through a divine influence.

Caesar Augustus, according to one story, was conceived while his mother was worshipping in the temple of Apollo and while she fell asleep was impregnated by the god Apollo.

Classical mythology is full of many virgin birth stories which were familiar to all men of that time. Christianity arose in the time when most of these gods were worshipped in various parts of the Roman Empire.

It is not hard to see why a virgin birth was almost a necessary claim for Christians in order to legitimize their god.

Note: These are just a few of the virgin birth/god stories that would have been accessible to the people of the Roman Empire of that time, there are many more virgin birth stories out there.

Apparently someone at some time decided that one of the requirements
qualifying an earthly being of divinity was the miracle of virgin birth.

IF faith alone allows us to believe in the God of All beings, then perhaps we should also consider the possibility that various strains of DNA were implanted to produce the original populations that inhabited the earth through time.

The Bible implies that God in some way simply snapped his fingers and poof Mary was pregnant.

So are we to accept the churches interpretation of divine intervention

or should we at least consider the more scientific possibility that we were in fact gradually bread and improved over time using some method of artificial insemination?

The latter explanation would require a fertilized embryo and this would in fact support virgin birth
for the sake of keeping the EARTHLY DNA as pure ( divine ) as possible.

One could not have a fertilized embryo ready to implant unless God or this divine entity, had a female counterpart.



[edit on 28-8-2005 by FallenFromTheTree]