(no subject)

[magicicada]

quick (low-tech) god poll inspired by fizzgig_bites

is god:

o male
o female
o neither
o both
o sometimes 100% male and sometimes 100% female
o no such thing and one of the above.
o no such thing and i'm not getting into theoretical genders of nonexistent beings.
o KNEEL! KNEEL! and stop asking such disrespectful questions or you will go straight to HAY-EELL!

Comments

[heathrow.livejournal.com]

Both.

[sylvar.livejournal.com]

"God created humankind in God's image; male and female God created them." Seems pretty straightforward to me -- though it's usually confused by silly pronouns.

Though I must say, God sems to have been cramping pretty badly throughout much of the Old Testament.

[songdancer.livejournal.com]

Both, and more.

I believe that the "beginning" occurred with the advent of the concept of being (e.g., "I AM") -- without the concept of being, no other concept would be possible. Without existence, there are no aspects or concepts of existence, no movement or actions to take (such as conceiving of things), etc. The "what was there before the big bang?" question becomes irrelevant, because Time couldn't exist before Being. The advent of Being was the only point of singularity -- the only time "God" could be considered a single entity -- after that it was split into the various "things" (matter, energy, ideas, etc.) in existence. Since everything in existence is made up of the same stuff, it is all connected, in one way or another. Pools of this stuff make up planets, people and gods. While individual identity can separate out Athena from Jehovah, etc., that in no way precludes them from being the same entity, since they are part of the same pool of existence.

This is a very comfortable way (at least for me) to view things, because it does not preclude personal responsibility, but it still allows for "help" from other entities, which may or may not have a corporeal existence. ("Any sufficiently complex pattern of energies, when treated as an entity, will behave accordingly."...and "Don't be fooled just because something is only the personification of a pattern of energies. You can be described this way, too.")

...I have never been one to believe in a "perfect" deity -- that's way too much pressure to put on anyone, corporeal or not. And just because something may be omnipotent and/or omniscient doesn't mean it can't be wrong, or make a mistake once in a while.

No gods for me, thank you.

[scrib71.livejournal.com]

I would say "No such thing, but since you asked..."

Assuming a monotheistic view, and that the terms male and female are used to denote sex and not gender, I have to ask the following irreverent question: if god has testicles, what are they for?

Back in the early days of creation, when there were many gods who procreated wildly amongst themselves and humans, the concept of male or female gods at least had some utility! I'll have to go with "neither."