Theological musings

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 7

Theological musings

Author:

SpaceGhoti

Topic:

Diaries

Posted:

Feb 03, 2002

Comments:

I was chatting with a friend online when the topic of humanity's beginnings came up. What will follow is guaranteed to shock and offend those sensitive religious nerves out there. However, this is a site that embraces controversy, so damn the torpedos! Here we go.

More diaries by SpaceGhoti

	Where'd it go?
	Wow!
	Solutions
	Hey, osm
	I am now truly amused
	Hilarity Ensues
	yawn
	Environmental Doomsday Clock stutters?
	_____
	Jakarta News
	Snicker
	Public Life

"In the beginning, God created the Universe. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is widely regarded as a bad move."

The above quote is famous in certain circles, both for its entertainment value and inherent heresy. But I believe it helps to raise some rather interesting questions about God, and what we know of God through His creation.

In the book of Genesis, we're told that God created the Heavens and the Earth, the water, land and sky. Then he created the creatures of the ocean, followed by the creatures on the land. Male and female, he created every one.

Then God created Man in His own image. Let's consider the implications of that. God created Man in His (God's) image. This means we know roughly what God looks like through our knowledge of Man. We don't necessarily know that Man was created as an exact replica of God with regard to internal organs, but I think we can safely assume that external details are going to remain constant. Two eyes, two ears, one nose with two nostrils, one mouth with teeth and tongue, etc.

This means that God has genitals. A penis and testicles. What does God need with sexual equipment?

Now wait, this is not just irreverant heresy. If you take the Bible as literal truth, unaltered by one jot or tittle, this becomes a valid question. God created Man and put him in the Garden to name all the creatures and everything he found. Man obliged him and did his duty, but got bored and lonely so God created Woman to be a helpmate. This means that God created in Man the capacity for sexual reproduction, but no means to satisfy it. It can be assumed that Woman was in mind for a later project, but we still return to the original question. Man, created in God's image, possesses sexual organs. It therefore follows that God has them as well. Why?

As a devout Deist/Agnostic, I don't presume to have the answer to that question. It isn't that important to me, but it is fascinating, and I'm curious as to what input people can provide.

	blah, blah, blah (none / 0) (#1)
	by osm on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 01:33:28 AM PST

	It's like wondering why Zeus needed genitals (since he hooked up with a human chick and ended up with a bastard child, Hercules). The bible has been translated and mutated all throughout history. Maybe it originally said, "God created humans using his imagination" (except worded more eloquently, I'm sure), emphasising that it didn't need to create something out of something else the way we have to. So. I think it's only fascinating if all you do is sit around eating bon-bon's and smoking pot while you watch Oprah reruns.

	Blah blah ad nauseum (none / 0) (#3)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 02:02:39 AM PST

	The Greeks had no problem with imagining their gods with sexual drives. In fact, their gods were remarkably human, they just had supernatural qualities attributed to them. However, the Christian god has no such quality assigned. While historically agreed to be male, this god is not recorded as engaging in any act of intercourse, even in the one recorded instance of conception. One of the foundations of Christian theology is that the Bible is unchanged, unaltered and literally accurate. Later schisms have suggested that perhaps this isn't true, but the Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Fundamental Baptist flavors of Christianity all firmly agree that the Bible is the original, uncorrupted Word of God and source of Truth. I accept the possibility that the Bible isn't necessarily the indisputable pillar of literal truth that people want it to be, but that's why I pose this question. Your answer sounds good to me, but I'd like to hear what thoughts other people have as well. A troll's true colors.

	hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#4)
	by osm on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 02:25:42 AM PST

	One of the foundations of Christian theology is that the Bible is unchanged, unaltered and literally accurate. Later schisms have suggested that perhaps this isn't true, but the Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic and Fundamental Baptist flavors of Christianity all firmly agree that the Bible is the original, uncorrupted Word of God and source of Truth. I'm not so sure I believe that. On second thought, I've run into people who do believe that. People with a masters degree in History, no less. It's insane to think the Bible hasn't been altered, by the Catholic church, no less. Maybe they believe since they altered it, it's still the word of God, even though the reasons they altered it weren't because of some divine inspiration but more to make the religion attractive to other groups. It's a shame it isn't virgin, like the Koran, which I've read. but I've heard reading a translation pretty much loses the poetry of it. It's supposedly an extremely beautiful work in its original language.

	There isn't "the Bible". (5.00 / 2) (#7)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 02:56:23 AM PST

	"The" Bible is actually a collection of stories that were originally passed by word-of-mouth. There isn't really an original, canonical written Bible -- what we think of as "The Bible" was actually put together by a committee of church officials, sometime during 360-400 A.D. The actual process was very lengthy and involved; there was much argument and discussion on which books should be put into the Bible and which should be rejected. Among the criteria for inclusion was not only adherence to Christian dogma, but also things like historical truthfulness of the book, the bibliographical honesty, etc. The stuff that was rejected is called the "apocrypha". Also, the reason why the need for a canonical Bible text arose was mostly because at the time there was a large number of texts that claimed to be "Christian" while at the same time professing diametrically oposite viewpoints. (The gnostic "testaments", for example.) So the point of the canon is mostly to protect innocent people from being tricked into believing that second-rate cultist works are divinely inspired. If not for this reason, the canonical Bible would have been put together much later. -- Peace and much love...

	Free clue. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 02:28:05 AM PST

	The Bible was written by fairly normal, standard human beings. I think you are confusing Christianity with Islam -- only Muslims claim that their Book is a "direct word of God". Besides, even a child would understand that being "made in the image of God" doesn't mean "a scale replica of God". (Which would be utter nonsense because God is infinite, omnipotent and omniscient.) It means that humans have been endowed with special God-given powers -- namely, that of free will. Animals aren't made in "God's image" because, ultimately, animals are merely God's puppets. Human beings, on the other hand, can act on their own free will. You need to remember that Genesis is the oldest part of the Bible, written throusands of years before Christ. Back then language was very different from the language today -- especially in the wording of complex, philosophical matters. The words that you would use to describe these matters simply didn't exist at the time. -- Peace and much love...

	Image of God as allegory (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 06:15:04 AM PST

	In other words, you're saying that the Bible is not translated as literal truth, but must be interpreted. Most conservative, orthodox Christian religions that I've encountered usually hold to the Bible as literal truth. When the Bible speaks of "an eye for an eye," the Bible means "an eye for an eye." When the Bible speaks of Elijiah outrunning the king's chariot, the Bible means that Elijiah literally outran the king's chariot. Thus, passages like Matthew 5:18, Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33 mean that the Bible continues unchanged and uncorrupted until the Rapture or the Second Coming (there's some dispute about that, as I understand it). Certainly, I can accept that the language used for the original recordings of the books of the Bible require interpretation. When 1 Samuel 24:3 talks about Saul going into a cave to "cover his feet," the writer was using a euphemism to describe Saul emptying his bladder. Yet, how do you differentiate that from Genesis 19:26, where it describes Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt? Do we need to interpret that as we interpret Saul covering his feet? If not, what standard is used to decide what needs interpretation and what doesn't? A troll's true colors.

	Real world. (none / 0) (#10)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 07:13:20 AM PST

	Most conservative, orthodox Christian religions that I've encountered usually hold to the Bible as literal truth. No. These people, although extremely rare, are neither "orthodox", nor "conservative", nor "Christian". I don't know what kind of people you talk to, but that is a pretty outrageous statement. So outrageous, in fact, that I've a feeling that you never actually spoke to a real, living Christian in your life. Most likely you pull this crap out of atheist tall-tales you atheists like to distribute among yourselves. Also, "literal truth" is a pretty meaningless phrase when applied to something that was written in 4000 B.C. and translated twice. To a Jewish goat-herder in 4000 B.C. the statement "in God's own image" might have meant something completely obvious and unambiguous; we, in our post-industrial society will never know. Besides, the point of Christianity isn't to follow "the Book". Like I said in a previous point, there is no Christian "Book". All we have, essentially, is ancient stories passed on to from the very first Christians, the Church, and faith. Reading the Bible without faith is pretty useless, anyways, since the Bible can only act as a reinforcement and a source of wisdom, not as a guide book. -- Peace and much love...

	Actually, (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 07:31:24 AM PST

	The protestants, who are the prevalent strain of Christianity in the US, do tend to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Furthermore, it is not unusual for them to believe that the point of their religion is to follow 'the book'. I suspect spacefish was referring to them, although they are most certainly neither Orthodox nor Conservative. No doubt they are rare in Russia, but they are disturbingly common here. -- Anonymous Reader #24601

	I believe you mean: (none / 0) (#16)
	by nathan on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 10:55:04 AM PST

	The protestants, who are the prevalent strain of Christianity in the US, do tend to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God... Fundamentalist Protestants. Liberal protestant theologians are exceedingly liberal indeed. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	this is interesting (none / 0) (#17)
	by nathan on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 01:52:29 PM PST

	That reminds me of something that's been bugging me for a little while. Why don't atheists ask Christians about their religion if they want to learn about Christianity? For that matter, why don't Christians ask Buddhists about their religion if they want to learn about Buddhism? I remember how upset I was when somebody tried to educate me about my religion about a month ago, and how utterly misguided her criticisms seemed; and that invites the question of whether any outsider can understand even the slightest bit through reading, misinterpreting, self-justifying, and intellectual masturbation. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	How is this interesting? (none / 0) (#18)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 02:59:04 PM PST

	First you say that unbelievers should ask Christians about Christianity, then you turn right around and say you don't like it when unbelievers offer their opinions on Christianity to Christians. Does that not strike you as even slightly hypocritical? And how about you stop painting all Atheists with the same brush? Plenty of us godless types can appreciate Christianity and Christians, and learn from them, and love some of them, and recognize differences between sects or individuals. Do you think you could return the favor? Nobody likes an evangelist. That's why I'd never try to convert you, or any other Christian, to Atheism. How unspeakably rude that would be. Maybe you should make up some new phrase like "Fundamentalist Atheist" so you can talk about Atheists you don't like, or Atheists who behave badly, without offending the rest of us. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	nonono (none / 0) (#19)
	by nathan on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 04:53:09 PM PST

	Mr. Slave, you wrote: First you say that unbelievers should ask Christians about Christianity, then you turn right around and say you don't like it when unbelievers offer their opinions on Christianity to Christians. You say that as though you were unaware of the distinction between non-Christians and atheism advocacy professionals. Since this isn't the case, I must conclude I was unclear. Sorry about that. I'm also sorry if I gave you the impression that I think all atheists are alike. I direct your attention to the part where I said Christians should talk to actual Buddhists. What I was getting at is that anyone who takes a book or a prejudiced summary for an accurate representation of others' deeply and genuinely-held feelings is acting very irresponsibly. I'm not qualified to be an evangelist, even were I to so choose. So let's shake hands. Yes? Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Yes. (none / 0) (#20)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 07:41:31 PM PST

	© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	A little offtopic... (4.00 / 1) (#2)
	by Yoshi on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 01:47:00 AM PST

	Slightly offtopic, but in other theological musings, take a look at this article from another British rag. Apparently, evolution has reached the end of the road. That's right, the theory that attempts to explain humans since the dawn of time was theorized right before it stopped occurring - essentially barring any further proving by comparing current or relatively recent data to future data. How utterly convenient.

	Evolutionary dead ends. (none / 0) (#6)
	by SpaceGhoti on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 02:32:05 AM PST

	I don't think it's necessarily implausible. If you accept that evolution is the source of humanity rather than divine creation, then you have to accept that there are certain forces at work to drive the process of evolution along. From the perspective of evolution, every species is a dead end. It's a gross generalization, but essentially true. Every species that currently exists has done so by finding and filling a specific biological niche. In the process, it has successfully defended against and destroyed any and all competition within its class. For example, look at the dung beetle. It serves a highly specialized and specific purpose: to recycle the dung of other animals. Take a dung beetle out of its environment and place it in a perfectly sterile cage littered with plants and insects but no warm-blooded animals, the dung beetle will starve to death. It has been taken out of its niche, and will die. We hear reports of countless species of animals going extinct because their habitats are being destroyed. These animals have become so dependent on a particular place or type of environment that taking them out means their destruction. What does this mean for humans? Humans use technology to alter the world around us, to shape the world according to our needs and desires. What these scientists are proposing is by doing so, by taming the wild, chaotic world around us, we remove those evolutionary factors that force us to adapt and change. We therefore have taken away our reason to evolve. This isn't necessarily true. You can guarantee that no matter how good their research, these scientists have not seen the whole picture. The earth is an ecosystem of incredible complexity, and we've still only scratched the surface. Who knows what unexpected development will force the human race into the next evolutionary step? We don't know. What we do know is that if humanity steps up on the evolutionary ladder, those who come after us will very likely not want us around. We will be in competition with them, and that means genocide. In true Darwinian form, there will be a war to the death, and the victors will inherit the Earth. If, as the topic of my diary suggests, evolution is not accurate and we're all the product of God's creation, then the topic is moot. Nothing will change us, because we are created in God's image, and God is unchanging. A troll's true colors.

	Originally,... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 06:47:33 AM PST

	before Christianity, there were God and Goddess. This would explain what God needed genitals for. The question if Goddess died, divorced, God got rid of her, or it just isn't theologically correct to mention Her anymore will probably remain lingering for some more time. If God created the world, then He is older than Christianity. Also remember that the history tends to be rewritten during its course. Members of authoritarian countries have the best chance to get more truthful informations outside of their countries; maybe members of authoritative religions should seek informations outside their own one...

	I agree (none / 0) (#15)
	by nathan on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 10:50:33 AM PST

	Members of authoritarian countries have the best chance to get more truthful informations outside of their countries; maybe members of authoritative religions should seek informations outside their own one. This is quite true. Anyone who lets convention and society dictate his religious beliefs is unbelievably stupid. Nathan -- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Original Israelite Religion (5.00 / 2) (#11)
	by piloti on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 07:15:03 AM PST

	Wasn't monotheism. It was worship of one god beyond all the others, monaltery. It didn't mean that the others didn't exist but they were evil. Jehovah was the sky god and equivalent to Zeus in the original semitic pantheon. In the Jewish Kabbbala, the female counter point of Jehovah was Lilith. She was evil but many think that she was Jehovah's equivalent of Zeus's Hera in the old semitic religion. Hence his consort and thus he needed genitals.

	True. (none / 0) (#13)
	by tkatchev on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 07:31:24 AM PST

	What you say is true, but you need to remember one thing -- the version of Genesis we have in the Bible is the version that adheres to the Judaic and Christian concept of God. Whether the Genesis we have is simply an edited version of the polytheistic legends, or some sort of non-standard "heretical" version of Jewish polytheism doesn't matter. What matters is that Genesis, as we know it, is emphatically not polytheistic. (Although you can see traces of a polythestic jewish religion if you use some clever textual analysis tricks.) -- Peace and much love...

	All sorts of polytheistic tendencies (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by piloti on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 08:12:55 AM PST

	Within Judaism and Christianity. The trinity is a classic example which relates back to the triads of gods within the ancient Sumerian religion. The kabbalah has a lot of stuff like Lilith which shows the polytheistic roots of the Jewish religion. Genesis contradicts itself in several places and has got some mentions of polytheism. Islam is the most rational and monotheistic of the three great monotheistic religions. But some people believe that Allah was the Moon God and hence the crescent moon symbol of Islam and the calendar based around the moon. And the kaaba in Mecca was originally a pagan shrine.

	God, Man, and Woman (5.00 / 2) (#21)
	by Bad English on Sun Feb 3rd, 2002 at 11:21:40 PM PST

	I've heard that in the original Hebrew, God made Eve from Adam's "side," which has been translated into English as "rib" (the translational discrepancy can be explained in the difference between "to know" someone in the biblical sense and "to know" knowledge), thus implying that Adam may have been a hermaphrodite, and because God made man in his image, it could be possible that God is a hermaphrodite as well. This could explain why Judeo-Christian religions believe sexual intercourse to be such a holy act-we are taking the form of God. Realizing that sex is the only way (without the use of modern science) through which we can create life adds support to this idea.

	Hermaphrodite (none / 0) (#22)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Feb 4th, 2002 at 12:51:09 AM PST

	That reminds me of the question of what a heterosexual hermaphrodite goes for a date. Anyway, I never really thought of God in that way. Of course, I've never been convinced that God's true form looked even vaguely similar to Charleston Heston. Even if your suggestion were true, I'm not comfortable with the concept of Adam as a hermaphrodite. Not only does it violate the consistency of the precedent set within the animal world (Genesis specifically mentions the animals were created male and female), but it really suggests that Woman is some sort of divine afterthought. I mean, if Adam the Hermaphrodite gets lonely, all he has to do is impregnate himself, right? A troll's true colors.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.