|
|
|
|
|
|
by microtherion
1175 days ago
|
|
|
Very interesting link to the Catechism. I had no idea that this was the official Catholic position. As for the male attributes, my guess would be that the majority of Christians would assume that God, being male, was equipped with an appropriately sized shlong, but did not avail Himself of it for any purpose. To support that view, I submit that in Christian art, He generally is depicted with a sizable beard, and without functioning testicles, that beard would have to have been immaculately grown. |
|
|
(Back vaguely to the topic, that's a big difference for Ishtar; she would have been thought about far more in terms of being a _person_ than the Abrahamic God).
The art thing is a bit of an oddity, arguably; Christians didn't really depict God in art at all much until the Renaissance, and many Protestants in particular objected, and sometimes still object, to it. The art has no theological significance in any case (it's obviously not canonical) but yeah, it may have reinforced the idea of God as a _person_ in peoples' minds.