frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





The biblical God is a "he" not a "she"

2»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @21CenturyIconoclast

    Oh you poor little fool Bogend/ I cunt on ice,  you posted up a piece of utter tripe about JW's with your usual junior school grammer as that's what abject failures like you do moan and whine on websites about nasty religious people who somehow hurt your liddle sensitive feelings .......When you finished moaning about the JW's you went on a rant about the Catholic Church including 40 links obsessing about child abuse I'm sure that put them in their place , you're a  cowardly turd sneaking and crawling on a website like the coward you are. Look buddy you most likely had you butt pummeled unmercifully by a long line of priests and your ring - piece is like a Japanese flag , why not go down to your local church and wag  your finger at them in anger ......now run along like the good liddle boy you are .....hey don't forget to bring the stick back ......FETCH .....NOW
    Nomenclature
  • KekeeKekee 23 Pts   -  
    True

    Bible does say that God created man to be his own image. And by man Bible specifically means a man not a human. In Genesis it was man whom God created first, God created a woman later to be man's parthner. 

    So since man was created by God to be his image and woman was created from the ribs of the man, that means that man is a bit closer to God meaning that biblical God is a he. 

    Another name for christian God is Father.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Kekee
    Bible does say that God created man to be his own image

    I don't understand why you're arguing about this. It's like arguing about the colour of unicorns or the height of leprechauns.

    Cat
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Kekee said:
    True

    Bible does say that God created man to be his own image. And by man Bible specifically means a man not a human. In Genesis it was man whom God created first, God created a woman later to be man's parthner. 

    So since man was created by God to be his image and woman was created from the ribs of the man, that means that man is a bit closer to God meaning that biblical God is a he. 

    Another name for christian God is Father.
    Something is off in your reasoning here. It does suggest that the first man in human history was closer to God than the first woman, but it does not at all suggest that a modern man is closer to God than a modern woman.

    As an example, suppose that the order of births is the following ("M" stands for a man, and "W" stands for a woman), starting from the very beginning:
    1. M
    2. W
    3. W
    4. M
    5. W
    6. M
    7. M
    8...
    Here we see that the first man is closer to God than the first two women, but the second man is farther away from him/her than either of the two women. It appears that, from this man's perspective, God is a she.

    Your reasoning is even less convincing when we consider that the genetic variation between humans (male and female combined) is approximately 0.1%. Seems pretty insignificant in the context of comparison with something as dramatically different as God. It is like asking whether a human man or a human woman is closer to a baby tarantula. It is like asking whether me or my roommate is closer to Hawaii (we live in Maryland).

    It seems that, from this perspective, it is best to place God somewhere in between "he" and "she". I do not know what that would be, but that certainly is neither of these two.
    Cat
  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 332 Pts   -  
    @21CenturyIconoclast

    So your god wrote the bible with his inspired words?
    Do you mean "inspired" words like these? 
    "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
    I could give you many more examples of your god's "inspired" words, but there is only so much of such inspiration that is possible to stomach!

    NomenclatureCat
  • JoeKerrJoeKerr 332 Pts   -  
    @Pepsiguy
    You said "Without the bible, then we wouldn't have an idea of the God of the bible. "

    So? Without The Wind in the Willows, we wouldn't have an idea of the Mr.Toad of The Wind in the Willows.
    Anyway, Mr.Toad is a much more believable character.
    NomenclatureCat
  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @JoeKerr ;Anyway, Mr.Toad is a much more believable character.

    I see what your trying to meen there but your got to realize that you don’t believe in Mr Toads because that would be so dum and worth less any way But when you believe in God your putting your faith in the creator and all his rules are set out be fore you and all is good for your life but believe ING in some kids story character is going to get you in to a loony farm I reckon.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot
    I see what your trying to meen there but your got to realize that you don’t believe in Mr Toads because that would be so dum and worth less any way But when you believe in God your putting your faith in the creator

    Exactly Barnie. Like, for example, I don't believe in unicorns because that would be so dumb and worthless, but I believe in elves because I'm putting my faith in Legolas, who saved us from Lord Sauron.


  • BarnardotBarnardot 519 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    but I believe in elves because I'm putting my faith in Legolas, who saved us from Lord Sauron.

    So what s the difference because there both dum things but is god a dum thing no he isn’t which is why people believe in God. It doesn’t take to much to work that one out at all.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot
    So what s the difference because there both dum things but is god a dum thing no he isn’t which is why people believe in God.

    Are elves a dumb thing? No they aren't, which is why people believe in elves.

    Mexican president claims he has proof of mythical woodland elf

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/mexican-president-claims-he-has-proof-of-mythical-woodland-elf/ar-AA17XCgH

    Stop attacking my faith Barnie, you spiritual bully.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Barnardot

    I think that "god" is a much "dumber" thing than Legolas and Sauron: the latest two are still bound by some (very loose) laws of physics, while "god" does not map onto anything known to us in this reality. I can somewhat imagine there being some undiscovered property of the Universe that makes magic such as necromancy or the Rings of Power potentially possible, but a creature from "beyond reality"? That is an LSD-level fantasy, and I cannot understand how any adult in the modern world can take it seriously.

    The fact that a large number of people believe something does not imply anything about that something other than that makes for an appealing story. You know, a century ago the vast majority of the population of Thailand (and many still to this day in largely rural areas) believed in a levitating head of a dead woman hunting down virgin girls... Does this sound like a smart thing to believe in to you? Probably not, yet had you been raised in that culture, chances are you would be much more open to taking this idea seriously.
    NomenclatureJohn_C_87
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @MayCaesar
    I think that "god" is a much "dumber" thing than Legolas and Sauron: the latest two are still bound by some (very loose) laws of physics, while "god" does not map onto anything known to us in this reality.

    Navigation is a learned craft MayCaesar so I have to cry fallacy on the above statement. GOD is a Whole truth Biblically and not all people, at all times are flawless (Perfect) at locating whole truth. Because a group of people chose to debate only those who agree God cannot be proven as something real, tangible and deserving legal protection by taxation does not mean that argument is scientifically without legal ramifications. You have always made it sound as if my grievance held against Pi and Clock / Time are not based on fact, that the issue is not relevant to other matters public. Yet, Time, Compass, and Pi are needed often in navigation and finding a destination, things adrift, and fixed location.

     Maybe it’s time people attempt with mathematics and physics to hold United State Constitutional Right and not law?

    GOD is a algebra equation not everyone simply understands. If the person holding the equation is male? The equation might be presumed male. If the person holding the equation is female? The equation might be presumed female. If the person holding GOD as something other than fact is either male or female? The equation will always be something other than fact.


    Added : 8:48 2/27/2023
    You did say GOD does not map onto reality to us, correct? Do I have a choice? 
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Navigation is a learned craft MayCaesar so I have to cry fallacy on the above statement. GOD is a Whole truth Biblically and not all people, at all times are flawless (Perfect) at locating whole truth. Because a group of people chose to debate only those who agree God cannot be proven as something real, tangible and deserving legal protection by taxation does not mean that argument is scientifically without legal ramifications.

    Hi John. I am afraid your claim is fallacious because the Miocene epoch is part of the Neogene period. In a strict Biblical sense we must reject appeals to flawlessness as individual relationships with incandescent truth are often superseded by the constitutional protections provided historically against the mindless justifications of animal behaviours. Your reference to legality is particularly erroneous because relevant parties have historically been subject to the stipulation of levies through a tiered apparatus, corporeality notwithstanding, and hence sublimation of the more flagrant benefits of fruit can be judged nothing more than pure coincidence.

  • KekeeKekee 23 Pts   -  
    God created a woman from man's ribs. That's literally what Genesis says, whether you think that it "does not make sense" does not matter. Genesis says that man came first and woman comes from man.

    If God was a she that would mean that a woman created man and man created another woman which is not the case. 

    Why are we arguing about this anyway. Why is God's gender more important than to believe in God?
  • @Kekee
    I am debating if GOD can have a gedner not what gender GOD might be. Why? GOD has been accused of earthly crimes and earthly crimes deserve earthly answers. While Jusus holds him as a father to which man or women at that point is to then be able assumes control over GOD. If true?  No Bueno........плуT.........baida.........dame desu.......mauvais........nicht gut........neit goed.......non va bene.......no good in jsut a few words

    The argument here is that God is described by Jesus as being a man GOD is niether male or female. Looking at Genesis where it is written:The Sixth Day.  26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itselfd and every creature that crawls upon it.” then said: ( man is made from a collection of self-evident truths)

     27So God created man in His own image; (God created man in man's own image of self-evident truth.)

    in the image of God He created him; ( In the image of self-evident truth God He created him. Man created man, in self-evident truth women created women.)

    male and female He created them.e (The creation of one slef-evident truth in reflection of identity creates the second creation automatically when it is different from the first truths witten of GOD.)



  • The reason in principle interpritations may not be good in contect is it directs people to believe they can control truth, whole true, and self-evident truths. Meaning simple it is no good to ever write of creation of life built on a direct lie. 
  • SargonskiSargonski 47 Pts   -  
    Pepsiguy said:
    Although modern progressive "Christians" like to refer to God as a woman, this is to me highly unbiblical. The rules of this debate are:

    * Do not commit logical fallacies
    * Use evidence from the 66 book bible.

     Depends which God of the Bible we are talking about.     some are depicted as Male  some as Female ... some as neither  .. some as both. 

    Jesus referred to his God as Male    "The Father"  .. but we are not told which God of the Bible this is. 

    Jesus is depicted as a male for those who believe Jesus is     "The Most High" 


    AbedRamzy
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch