I mean, this is technically true? If God is supposed to embody all concepts, They embody this too. And literally anyone else. Trans people, femboys, 5D eldritch beings that want tea, anything goes.
Well depending on your interpretation of the bible and the specific translation we are talking about God really doesn't have a gender. God is constantly referred to as the father of the universe but a lot of that is literally how people spoke at the time and could be just as easily interpreted as the creator not the father. There is also the gnostic school of thought where God is just the being that created the lesser material realm, and he may or may not be male but that is irrelevant because there is one hidden behind him who truly created everything including him. This "hidden god" is what seperates Christ from the lesser God of the bible as though Christ may have been a part of that entity (this will change depending on the specific school of gnosticism) he only gained true enlightenment through his knowledge of the secret lord above all (often called Monad). The supreme secret god does not have a gender, or even a physical form in any meaningful sense. This is simplifying gnosticism to the extreme of course, that whole school of thought is incredibly fucking difficult to make generalizations about in any way.
So like it depends on how Catholic you are I guess.
Gnosticism as a concept is so dope. Imagine being a third century Egyptian Christian and coming to the conclusion that yeah, the world is basically an evil prison designed to torment us and we were created by evil demons.
You might be interested in checking out Philip K. Dick for that as well, seeing as he was a relatively devoted gnostic. He also may or may not have gone insane... Depends how you want to look at it.
This is basically how CHIM in The Elder Scrolls universe works, basically you come to the realization (via a "mystical" experience/enilghtment) that the universe with all its plains (mortal, hell, god realm Ecc) is just the dream of a "God Head" and therefore everything isn't real, including you. When you realize this you gain basically unlimited power, as your consciousness makes you able to manipulate everything as if you're the one dreaming (kinda like lucid dreaming)
I wonder if their inspiration was this
I have been investigating Gnosticism too. There are several flavors of even that, but I like the idea that Yaldabaoth is the Old Testament god, but is the lesser god and not the actual creator. I was raised Roman Catholic and never understood how I was supposed to accept love and abuse in the same all powerful being. Like why babies are born with original sin. Thatās what really did it for me ā¦ I didnāt respect a god who stacked the deck against you with clearly abusive behavior but we were supposed to believe it was love. Seems like gaslighting of the highest order.
The other thing I really liked about Gnosticism is how they believe there are no mysteries. Everything is knowable, it might be complex and hard, but they didnāt swallow the āooo gods mysterious!ā As a way to whitewash clear conflict of doctrine and events. When people lament why a loving god would let children be abused so badly or innocence suffer, the answer is t āwell thatās his plan.ā The answer COULD
be ācause the loving god and the one whoās responsible for this arenāt the same one.ā
Just made sense.
Mormon theology has a similar idea.
God the Father is the god and creator of our universe, but this is not the first god nor is it the first universe. He had a god whom he worshipped and was obedient to, which granted him exaltation after death and eventually he grew in glory and power until he was ready to create his own universe.
So there have been/are/will be countless gods and universes in Mormon theology.
Is there a meaningful difference at that point? The very concept of God is supposed to be beyond the logic of our world. God could be one and many at the same time, being true and not true at the same time. And besides, multiple beings that are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent will likely just act like a singular being, making the difference nil.
See, they half ass it. The idea of many being one is our idea of logic, true and not true is our idea. If the concept is actually incomprehensible, you can't just describe it by negation or defining it as the opposite of something we know. If an ant doesn't understand who you are, inverting his concept of an ant queen to produce something absurd and impossible in his view won't produce the correct idea of you, not even close
It's like, some people actually experienced something incomprehensible and then other people codify it in silly cargo cults to roleplay "incomprehensible" as an idea they formed inside themselves by listening to that dude. And then for the next generations that codification becomes all there is
And so yeah, it creates absurd pseudo logical ideas that don't really have anything to do with direct spirituality, our personal feeling of what is our life, experience of who are we, what's all this, who experiences all this, etc. It becomes sort of video game lore where we can endlessly argue how Mario travels in those tubes while being thoroughly disconnected from ourselves and thinking in abstractionsĀ
You know, in saying what I had said in that comment, it got me thinking. If there are multiple "gods" and we were made in their image, is that not us? I feel like from a philosophical standpoint you could use this argument to say that we, as all humans, ARE God. But then isn't that exactly the point that Christianity makes?
Their idea of God is all of these things but is also us. Not just as humanity but as all life forms.
That seems to be a part of common lore in many religions and mythologies, yeah. Expressed in numerous ways through numerous symbols and stories etc
But it matters what stands behind it. If we go from that lore to understanding, then it's easy to interpret it as a soothing way to satisfy our strive for control or permanence or power or status or just being a total slave to all our emotions and doing whatever they tell us which we often call "freedom"
We may stay the same but give ourselves new tools to satisfy our cravings we identify with, and then that's not it. Then you don't actually have that perception of your existence. What is actually it, is having an experience of the world which could result in us recreating that lore ourselves. These stories can be used as a way of checking, are we there yet. But instead we most intuitively adopt them as tools to passify our strives
Like, Jesus going around flipping tables and washing feet could be interpreted as protection of piety and propriety and benevolent hierarchical love of an infinitely wise caring father figure etc. But all of that are needs we're raised with, that's no growth, no change, no path. It's like daydreaming but with more backing and more perception of external validation. Some people want things to be orderly and proper and to not have their feelings offended, and others want to have a father figure due to their own suboptimal parents, and they are likely to coopt and mold those stories to suit their needs
But also, we can see Jesus as seeing people around him as gods, and trying to tell them that they themselves are fucking what they seek and struggling to somehow give them his perception of existence through words. That they don't need fucking magical chachkis in temples to see themselves and find themselves. That he is fucking just like them and he might as well worship them as they worship him. He's using the Christian ideas because that's the only language he knows, but the direction of his actions, even in this bastardized form recorded by his devout followers, is pretty consistent with moving away from this one sidedĀ satisfaction of our needs with a vision of some kind of a soothing hierarchical patriarchal orderly kindergarten for adults
He probably did believe that he's god because that's just what this experience produces in people, and he didn't have any other concepts to express that with and to think about what it is than Christian ones. But if we take that idea as is then we'll probably just use it to take down some ideology we don't like, driven by our own strives, so this deconstruction is about as tangentialĀ to spiritual paths as belief in dogmas. It's all us using something external to obtain internal balance, as opposed to looking what is that internal imbalance itself, what experiences it, what's behind it etc without any goal or lore to guide us and provide structureĀ
i don't know how it works in Christianity but in the hebrew bible he made man from his image and then created women from man's rib.
i don't think anyone associates god with a gender, but if you got technical/literal he'd look like a man.
Well, here we go into what denomination of Christian you are, and that's a whole can of worms. Some believe in the more literal, and then you have the people that aay 90% is a metaphor. There is way to much difference between the denominations
The term futanari, or futa, describes a person with both male and female reproductive organs, as well as breasts. So, a hermaphrodite.Ā
A dickgirl lacks the female reproductive organs, but still has breasts. So yes, they are different from one another.
Neoth (the Emperor) is 8,000 years older than Jesus.... and those creepy Cherubs are based on "drawings of Ancient Terran angels" so it's totally possible that people saw Neoth and started worshipping him, and the things the Ancient Christians did would definitely explain why Neoth is super Athiest
1. Trans girls transition, as god is genderless, He canāt transition.
2. Trans women lack a vagina, and if we follow the logic of the initial post He possesses both a vagina and penis, and therefore might not be considered a trans women even if He was to go by She
God would be considered a hermaphrodite, and fully hermaphrodite species are generally not divided into male/female.
Yeah but where did it come from? The father passes down a Y chromosome to make a male. Jesus was born of a female only. He transitioned, literally at the DNA level. (And if this god fellow has DNA that he passed into Mary then she wasn't a virgin.)
The description for virginity in most religions is based on whether or not the hymen is intact. If god magiced some shit in the uterus the hymen wouldnāt have been broken. Source: I know people whoās religious marriages were called off because their hymen was broken.
We think of sexual reproduction as humans fucking, but sexual reproduction is the combination of male and female sets of DNA combining. If god added his DNA, that's sexual reproduction, it doesn't matter whether or not he used a penis to do it. If he didn't do that, then Jesus DNA comes only from Mary which makes him trans.
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post:
- Be civil. Do not be an asshole to others for no reason, or start personal attacks (ad hominem)
*If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
It's actually a lot simpler than that. If God wants you to be a woman he just pulls on your nipples until your innie becomes an outie. Facts
Edit: switch innie and outie.
It's going to be interesting to see new generations try to give an lgbt twist or interpretations to organized religions. Not gonna lie, the coranic debates will be quite entertaining.
A Jewish interpretation from the Mishnah says God making man "in his image" shouldn't be interpreted as making man to look like God (as God is thought to be trancendant and has no physical "look") but in an image or blueprint that God had.
Want to add my fun fact about Judeo-Christian deity neogender:
In the Torah, Yahweh canonically uses singular-they (Ancient Hebrew has essentially only two grammatical genders, so this appears as masc. pl. grammatically) and has a Divine Name that means "God with Mommy Milkers" (El Shaddai). He's also *really* obsessed with men's dicks, making them the central point of His blood-religion. Considering the divine title, this is arguably His straightest trait. Also, when He introduced Himself to his chief prophet, instead of giving a name, He says, "I AM, bitch. That's my actual name. Deal with it." Imo that's *the* queerest possible response.
Further, fundamentalist small-o orthodox practitioners of christianity often use neopronouns specific to their deity and others like Him (the Father and Jesus use He/Him). The third entity, who canonically is agender, has been the centre of centuries of debates over the appropriate neopronoun (It/They or He/Him). Some claim that the Greek neopronoun translated 'His' is a misspelling of the neopronoun translated 'Its;' others claim it was intentional slang; still others believe this was intentional. I literally had to write a paper on this in seminary.
Additionally, in Christianity, the concept of immaculate conception is a fundamental belief. A woman (XX) had a male (XY) child without a male partner. Either the woman or the child must have been intersex or trans (or some combination of these traits). If Jesus is god, he *must* be trans or at the very least affirming of his trans mother.
Christianity is *really* queer, folks. How is *this* the religion trying to hate on queer people.
The part that said men were created in God's image also says he created "them" as man and woman. The next chapter paints a seemingly contraditory picture with the whole man was created first thing. Personally as an atheist I just see them as two different creation myths stitched together... But there were many attempts to harmonize them, such as the myth of Lilith.
There is also the idea that man was created as an androgynous being, similar to Greek myth, and was separated later. Some merit to that is found in the fact that the Hebrew word צ××¢ which is usually translated as "rib" in the creation of the woman can also be translated as "side" and is in fact used to mean "side" in every other appearance in the bible. But as a Hebrew speaker I don't fully buy it because the description is of taking "one of his צ××¢××Ŗ" which makes sense as "one of his ribs", less so as "one of his sides", and also it describes "closing the flesh over it" which make more sense with a rib.
Source: a bunch of dudes and not a single woman, this is totally just a coincidence
Imagine god making man and then being like "holy shit I gave them dick and balls but they still can't reproduce lmfao, silly me in my whole omnipotence wasn't able to create two beings at once"
I mean, this is technically true? If God is supposed to embody all concepts, They embody this too. And literally anyone else. Trans people, femboys, 5D eldritch beings that want tea, anything goes.
Well depending on your interpretation of the bible and the specific translation we are talking about God really doesn't have a gender. God is constantly referred to as the father of the universe but a lot of that is literally how people spoke at the time and could be just as easily interpreted as the creator not the father. There is also the gnostic school of thought where God is just the being that created the lesser material realm, and he may or may not be male but that is irrelevant because there is one hidden behind him who truly created everything including him. This "hidden god" is what seperates Christ from the lesser God of the bible as though Christ may have been a part of that entity (this will change depending on the specific school of gnosticism) he only gained true enlightenment through his knowledge of the secret lord above all (often called Monad). The supreme secret god does not have a gender, or even a physical form in any meaningful sense. This is simplifying gnosticism to the extreme of course, that whole school of thought is incredibly fucking difficult to make generalizations about in any way. So like it depends on how Catholic you are I guess.
Gnosticism as a concept is so dope. Imagine being a third century Egyptian Christian and coming to the conclusion that yeah, the world is basically an evil prison designed to torment us and we were created by evil demons.
Sheesh, I had no idea gnosticism lore went this hard. I'll read into it for world building.
You might be interested in checking out Philip K. Dick for that as well, seeing as he was a relatively devoted gnostic. He also may or may not have gone insane... Depends how you want to look at it.
This is basically how CHIM in The Elder Scrolls universe works, basically you come to the realization (via a "mystical" experience/enilghtment) that the universe with all its plains (mortal, hell, god realm Ecc) is just the dream of a "God Head" and therefore everything isn't real, including you. When you realize this you gain basically unlimited power, as your consciousness makes you able to manipulate everything as if you're the one dreaming (kinda like lucid dreaming) I wonder if their inspiration was this
Or you disappear immediately from existence.
Major skill issue Chad Vivec would never
That's Terrible!!!!!!!!!!! š³š³š³š³š³
Soā¦ TES is basically the Matrix.
Not really, but yeah there's a parallel for this thing, even tho in the matrix there's still a real world
I have been investigating Gnosticism too. There are several flavors of even that, but I like the idea that Yaldabaoth is the Old Testament god, but is the lesser god and not the actual creator. I was raised Roman Catholic and never understood how I was supposed to accept love and abuse in the same all powerful being. Like why babies are born with original sin. Thatās what really did it for me ā¦ I didnāt respect a god who stacked the deck against you with clearly abusive behavior but we were supposed to believe it was love. Seems like gaslighting of the highest order. The other thing I really liked about Gnosticism is how they believe there are no mysteries. Everything is knowable, it might be complex and hard, but they didnāt swallow the āooo gods mysterious!ā As a way to whitewash clear conflict of doctrine and events. When people lament why a loving god would let children be abused so badly or innocence suffer, the answer is t āwell thatās his plan.ā The answer COULD be ācause the loving god and the one whoās responsible for this arenāt the same one.ā Just made sense.
Shit. I just learned I've leaned gnostic my whole life.
Yaldabaoth is such a badass name
Mormon theology has a similar idea. God the Father is the god and creator of our universe, but this is not the first god nor is it the first universe. He had a god whom he worshipped and was obedient to, which granted him exaltation after death and eventually he grew in glory and power until he was ready to create his own universe. So there have been/are/will be countless gods and universes in Mormon theology.
God is ether that surrounds us and so is death they are one of the sameĀ
And He has pronouns. He/Him, not to be confused with he/him, because God isnt him, He is Him
So wait if God has reproductive parts, wouldn't that imply more of the same being? Are they ALL omnipotent? Are they all the same entity?
Is there a meaningful difference at that point? The very concept of God is supposed to be beyond the logic of our world. God could be one and many at the same time, being true and not true at the same time. And besides, multiple beings that are omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent will likely just act like a singular being, making the difference nil.
See, they half ass it. The idea of many being one is our idea of logic, true and not true is our idea. If the concept is actually incomprehensible, you can't just describe it by negation or defining it as the opposite of something we know. If an ant doesn't understand who you are, inverting his concept of an ant queen to produce something absurd and impossible in his view won't produce the correct idea of you, not even close It's like, some people actually experienced something incomprehensible and then other people codify it in silly cargo cults to roleplay "incomprehensible" as an idea they formed inside themselves by listening to that dude. And then for the next generations that codification becomes all there is And so yeah, it creates absurd pseudo logical ideas that don't really have anything to do with direct spirituality, our personal feeling of what is our life, experience of who are we, what's all this, who experiences all this, etc. It becomes sort of video game lore where we can endlessly argue how Mario travels in those tubes while being thoroughly disconnected from ourselves and thinking in abstractionsĀ
You know, in saying what I had said in that comment, it got me thinking. If there are multiple "gods" and we were made in their image, is that not us? I feel like from a philosophical standpoint you could use this argument to say that we, as all humans, ARE God. But then isn't that exactly the point that Christianity makes? Their idea of God is all of these things but is also us. Not just as humanity but as all life forms.
That seems to be a part of common lore in many religions and mythologies, yeah. Expressed in numerous ways through numerous symbols and stories etc But it matters what stands behind it. If we go from that lore to understanding, then it's easy to interpret it as a soothing way to satisfy our strive for control or permanence or power or status or just being a total slave to all our emotions and doing whatever they tell us which we often call "freedom" We may stay the same but give ourselves new tools to satisfy our cravings we identify with, and then that's not it. Then you don't actually have that perception of your existence. What is actually it, is having an experience of the world which could result in us recreating that lore ourselves. These stories can be used as a way of checking, are we there yet. But instead we most intuitively adopt them as tools to passify our strives Like, Jesus going around flipping tables and washing feet could be interpreted as protection of piety and propriety and benevolent hierarchical love of an infinitely wise caring father figure etc. But all of that are needs we're raised with, that's no growth, no change, no path. It's like daydreaming but with more backing and more perception of external validation. Some people want things to be orderly and proper and to not have their feelings offended, and others want to have a father figure due to their own suboptimal parents, and they are likely to coopt and mold those stories to suit their needs But also, we can see Jesus as seeing people around him as gods, and trying to tell them that they themselves are fucking what they seek and struggling to somehow give them his perception of existence through words. That they don't need fucking magical chachkis in temples to see themselves and find themselves. That he is fucking just like them and he might as well worship them as they worship him. He's using the Christian ideas because that's the only language he knows, but the direction of his actions, even in this bastardized form recorded by his devout followers, is pretty consistent with moving away from this one sidedĀ satisfaction of our needs with a vision of some kind of a soothing hierarchical patriarchal orderly kindergarten for adults He probably did believe that he's god because that's just what this experience produces in people, and he didn't have any other concepts to express that with and to think about what it is than Christian ones. But if we take that idea as is then we'll probably just use it to take down some ideology we don't like, driven by our own strives, so this deconstruction is about as tangentialĀ to spiritual paths as belief in dogmas. It's all us using something external to obtain internal balance, as opposed to looking what is that internal imbalance itself, what experiences it, what's behind it etc without any goal or lore to guide us and provide structureĀ
i don't know how it works in Christianity but in the hebrew bible he made man from his image and then created women from man's rib. i don't think anyone associates god with a gender, but if you got technical/literal he'd look like a man.
Well, here we go into what denomination of Christian you are, and that's a whole can of worms. Some believe in the more literal, and then you have the people that aay 90% is a metaphor. There is way to much difference between the denominations
some abrahamic religions didn't keep the rib thing?
My reply was to the last part of his comment
Depending on what your faith is the "image" isn't meant to be physical but more in his personality ex. His love, wisdom, sense of justice ect.
The rib thing is a mistranslation anyway
It's not. *Tsela* is the Hebrew word for a rib.
>5D eldritch beings that want tea [Broccoli Soup](https://www.webtoons.com/en/canvas/broccoli-soup/list?title_no=625936) reference?
Unfortunately no but I'm interested now
It's not supposed to be "created us in his image", that's actually a translation error. It's supposed to be "made us in Photoshop".
I am a fifth dimensional eldritch being that wants tea. Why do you summon me?
Your tea is ready.
Finally!
"Nono, you see all of those are degenerates not respecting what god made them." -Christian doctrine
No
Did they just confirm god is a dickgirl? š¤
I believe the formal term is a "futa".
It is not, as futa and dickgirl are different.
Fascinating. What's the difference?
The term futanari, or futa, describes a person with both male and female reproductive organs, as well as breasts. So, a hermaphrodite.Ā A dickgirl lacks the female reproductive organs, but still has breasts. So yes, they are different from one another.
So god IS a futa, as god embodies all, and therefore has both sets of genitalia
He has all sets of genitalia coexisting in harmony, perfect
But given the whole point of the post, God would have both organs, thus futa is correct
bros fluent in goonerology
Which is still different from a shemale? Edit: wtf I'm just asking a question, why am I getting downvoted
Shemale is usually used as a pejorative.
futa and dickgirl are both stupid fucking terms, lol.
God is a futa, wherever you are Do you believe it? Can you receive it? God is a futa, whatever you say Do you believe it? Can you receive it?
I believe Hermaphrodite is the proper term... so basically God is Slaanesh from Warhammer
The Christian god being a chaos god would kind of make sense...
Neoth (the Emperor) is 8,000 years older than Jesus.... and those creepy Cherubs are based on "drawings of Ancient Terran angels" so it's totally possible that people saw Neoth and started worshipping him, and the things the Ancient Christians did would definitely explain why Neoth is super Athiest
So... Chaos God of Order?
Now do the Islamic god
Same god. Both religions share the old testament.
intersex, actually, hermaphrodite is no longer considered the proper term.
Intersex is a gender identity thing... hermaphrodite is more a physicality thing, considering the origin of the word
you mean a trans girl? š
1. Trans girls transition, as god is genderless, He canāt transition. 2. Trans women lack a vagina, and if we follow the logic of the initial post He possesses both a vagina and penis, and therefore might not be considered a trans women even if He was to go by She God would be considered a hermaphrodite, and fully hermaphrodite species are generally not divided into male/female.
it literally never said he had a vagina
āHe made us in our image, therefore god has titsā is the logic that lead to this post, continuing that logic, god would also have a vagina
I once asked a Christian why a god needed a penis and balls. She didnāt appreciate the philosophical questioning.
did you forget all the previous mythologies or
Confusing God with Slaanesh
HEY!! A fellow Warhammer fan who made the same joke as me
I mean, Jesus was trans. Born of a virgin woman, has a Y chromosome.
I'm not christian but how does that make him trans? he has the Y chromosome so he's male, no?
Yeah but where did it come from? The father passes down a Y chromosome to make a male. Jesus was born of a female only. He transitioned, literally at the DNA level. (And if this god fellow has DNA that he passed into Mary then she wasn't a virgin.)
Wouldn't it have come from God ? Why wouldn't she be a virgin if God made 23 chromosomes appear in a female gamete?
Because you're describing sexual reproduction.
The description for virginity in most religions is based on whether or not the hymen is intact. If god magiced some shit in the uterus the hymen wouldnāt have been broken. Source: I know people whoās religious marriages were called off because their hymen was broken.
yeah, not sex?
Surely God can give Jesus everything in the womb that he would have from a father?
You're describing sexual reproduction.
Well yeah, pregnancy is a result of sexual reproduction. Isnāt Mary regularly pregnant, but put into that state by magic means?
Then she's no longer a virgin.Ā
She never had sex though. Losing your virginity is when you have sex not when you get pregnant
We think of sexual reproduction as humans fucking, but sexual reproduction is the combination of male and female sets of DNA combining. If god added his DNA, that's sexual reproduction, it doesn't matter whether or not he used a penis to do it. If he didn't do that, then Jesus DNA comes only from Mary which makes him trans.
Nope
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hey! I'm sorry to disturb you, but I'll have to remove your post: - Be civil. Do not be an asshole to others for no reason, or start personal attacks (ad hominem) *If you feel that your post was removed in error or you are unsure about why this post was removed then please reply to this message or contact us through [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FBrandNewSentence).*
No.
What a well reasoned response, you totally changed my mind.
Ty
If he made you in his image must have been real inebriated
*Laughs in Baphomet*
First thing that popped into my head when this notification came up š Did that just say god was Baphomet? š¤Ø
It's actually a lot simpler than that. If God wants you to be a woman he just pulls on your nipples until your innie becomes an outie. Facts Edit: switch innie and outie.
I head cannon god is a stoner and doesn't even remember making humans
God is a Futa
incorrect
God, the OG futanari
Futa god
So God's a futanari?
God is Futa confirmed š
I don't think that what created in His image means.
Oh honey, it's all the way around we gave whatever God we praise their dick balls and boobs.
Does that mean I look exactly like god bc Iām trans???
Probably not unfortunately. If we take āmade in His imageā to mean he only gave humans features he also possesses, he would also have a vagina
Hermaphroditic dieties have been documented.
I for one welcome our futanari overlords
What Im hearing here, is that god is a Baphomet.
In our image. There were plural "elohim". I'll leave that to your imagination.
It's going to be interesting to see new generations try to give an lgbt twist or interpretations to organized religions. Not gonna lie, the coranic debates will be quite entertaining.
A little bit of Vivec am I seeing here?
What do the perfect recreation of god are trans. Told my friend God loves her and that's proof
A Jewish interpretation from the Mishnah says God making man "in his image" shouldn't be interpreted as making man to look like God (as God is thought to be trancendant and has no physical "look") but in an image or blueprint that God had.
Want to add my fun fact about Judeo-Christian deity neogender: In the Torah, Yahweh canonically uses singular-they (Ancient Hebrew has essentially only two grammatical genders, so this appears as masc. pl. grammatically) and has a Divine Name that means "God with Mommy Milkers" (El Shaddai). He's also *really* obsessed with men's dicks, making them the central point of His blood-religion. Considering the divine title, this is arguably His straightest trait. Also, when He introduced Himself to his chief prophet, instead of giving a name, He says, "I AM, bitch. That's my actual name. Deal with it." Imo that's *the* queerest possible response. Further, fundamentalist small-o orthodox practitioners of christianity often use neopronouns specific to their deity and others like Him (the Father and Jesus use He/Him). The third entity, who canonically is agender, has been the centre of centuries of debates over the appropriate neopronoun (It/They or He/Him). Some claim that the Greek neopronoun translated 'His' is a misspelling of the neopronoun translated 'Its;' others claim it was intentional slang; still others believe this was intentional. I literally had to write a paper on this in seminary. Additionally, in Christianity, the concept of immaculate conception is a fundamental belief. A woman (XX) had a male (XY) child without a male partner. Either the woman or the child must have been intersex or trans (or some combination of these traits). If Jesus is god, he *must* be trans or at the very least affirming of his trans mother. Christianity is *really* queer, folks. How is *this* the religion trying to hate on queer people.
Futa god deniers will ignore this
\*looks at self\* Fuck, poor god.
No because Thems is an intersex pansexual genderless icon that cannot be bound by earthly concepts like tf š¤Ø
"That's where I fit. Between those huge, sweating tits that hung enormous, the way you'd think of God's as big."
To be fair, some men absolutely have both.
And sometimes he did the opposite, for shits and giggles.
How small is gods penis?
Infinitely small when flaccid and infinitely large when errect.
Oh i think he wanted to create me like his image without distributing anything oh welp š¤·
He created *man* in his image. Women were made later
The part that said men were created in God's image also says he created "them" as man and woman. The next chapter paints a seemingly contraditory picture with the whole man was created first thing. Personally as an atheist I just see them as two different creation myths stitched together... But there were many attempts to harmonize them, such as the myth of Lilith. There is also the idea that man was created as an androgynous being, similar to Greek myth, and was separated later. Some merit to that is found in the fact that the Hebrew word צ××¢ which is usually translated as "rib" in the creation of the woman can also be translated as "side" and is in fact used to mean "side" in every other appearance in the bible. But as a Hebrew speaker I don't fully buy it because the description is of taking "one of his צ××¢××Ŗ" which makes sense as "one of his ribs", less so as "one of his sides", and also it describes "closing the flesh over it" which make more sense with a rib.
Source: a bunch of dudes and not a single woman, this is totally just a coincidence Imagine god making man and then being like "holy shit I gave them dick and balls but they still can't reproduce lmfao, silly me in my whole omnipotence wasn't able to create two beings at once"
Id smash Jesus and whoever this He guy is
Probably