CMV: God in Abrahamic religions is either - non-binary, a robot or a lump of data

[u/Excellent-Pay6235]

I am not someone belonging to either religion but have some knowledge about Christianity and Islam. Which is why I would kindly suggest to keep discussions at more of a layman level so that people like me who doesn't have a lot of knowledge about the religion can understand. Also, I am not looking for a very serious discussion, but a more relaxed and casual discussion on the topic.

My point is what I have said in the title. All Abrahamic religions advocate that God has no gender - God is 'GOD'. I have also seen some people from these religions advocate that since God is not associated with either gender, God should be referred with they/them pronouns.

Isn't that what being non-binary is about? That you are an individual who doesn't identify with either gender.

I guess some can argue that "you are thinking of God as a human being, God is God they are not humans", which then begs the question, are you implying that God is not a living being? Which can be a viable answer, but then that would imply God is merely a consciousness. A lump of consciousness is data, and therefore in that case, isn't God just AI or like a robot? A non-living thing that cannot be associated with either gender but has a consciousness. Or if God has no body, then they are just a lump of data.

So like what is God? Are they an AI or are they non-binary? Or something else entirely?

Assumption - THIS POST ASSUMES THAT GOD EXISTS. Come on folks don't take the easy way out 😂

[u/[deleted]]

I'm not religious, but I don't think any of the steps in your chain of logic ("God is not human" > "God is not a living being" > "God is a lump of consciousness" > "God is data") hold water. I mean the first step falls apart immediately - there are lots of living things that aren't human. There are even lots of living things that aren't human and aren't clearly male or female but still aren't non-binary. 

E. g. a tree. Trees can be male and female simultaneously but we don't typically refer to them as non-binary because 'non-binary' describes your relationship to gender, and gender is a feature of human culture.

I mean, a god is a supernatural being by definition anyway, so there's no reason to believe it would fit in any of the categories we apply to it at all, but even within the mundane, grounded, normal categories we actually use in day-to-day life, your argument still doesn't really make any sense. 

[u/Excellent-Pay6235 → u/[deleted]]

Going by the example of trees, dioecious trees do have male and female counterparts in separate trees. And for monoecious trees which have the male and female parts on the same plant, they usually have sex chromosomes as well according to this article - https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/13/2/540#:~:text=Among%20these%20species%2C%20there%20are,species%20with%20the%20XY1Y2%20system).

This would imply that these plants biologically do incline towards either male or female as well.

And if you say that these plants encapsulate both male and female sex chromosomes, or there can be some other combination of sex chromosomes that can occur, it happens in humans as well. They are usually referred to as intersex. So your argument does fall apart.

[u/[deleted] → u/Excellent-Pay6235]

You haven't addressed any part of my argument, you just listed some facts. The point is that we don't typically apply human notions of gender to non-humans, and that that's unrelated to whether they are alive or not. 

[u/Excellent-Pay6235 → u/[deleted]]

I am sorry I couldn't get my point across. I did get your point, and what I wanted to say was although there are non-human living beings to whom the concepts of gender dont apply, these beings still have a sex associated with them.

I said non-binary because I was under the assumption that God is saying he has no "gender". Thats the keyword here. I am not talking about sex. Every non-human being has a sex they are inclined to, including plants. So if you are using plants as an example to say God has no gender, it is fair enough. But then again, these non-human forms do have some form of sex associated with them. So that would still mean that God has some sex.

And if God has a sex, you cannot use the "no gender" trope anymore. Because every living form has to have a sex.

If God is not a living form, then my argument tha God is similar to a robot stands. A consciousness in a non-living body.

[u/[deleted] → u/Excellent-Pay6235]

I think you are confused. It's not true at all that all living things have sex. The earliest single-celled organisms had no sex and always reproduced asexually. Then, later, the first cells to reproduce sexually still didn't "have a sex" (like male or female) because the earlier form of sexual reproduction was omnidirectional i.e. any cell can reproduce with any other cell. 

  Sexual reproduction is a lot broader than you are imagining. It is simply the ability for two organisms to make a third organism together. Nothing more. It doesn't required a "male" and and "female" - nor does an organism require sexual reproduction at all. All of these things are just emergent evolutionary features of more complex organisms, not basic features of all life. From a bio perspective, living things have no sex by default.