The character of God is known to everyone whether they believe in Him or not.

I think some feminists once marched under the slogan "I saw God and she was black."
Just saying.

Just to say I really liked the excerpt I read. That's all. S

The character of God

I suppose one problem is: what is the character of God? Why/how is he/He/she/She/it/It different from your standard fly-on-the-wall, neutral, omniscient narrator?

If your narrator is God then it will be in how you characterise her that you make him something different from the usual. And that immediately sets forward a position on what It is, and isn't..

And even if you leave aside Alex's exploding aetheists (and I know EXACTLY the sort you mean, Alex: just as turkey-gobbling irrationally furious as the most fired-up Tennessee creationist), it would be quite a rare reader who didn't then read it as Making a Point about God, however light-heartedly...

there's a well known book called 'The Shack', which is fiction but intended to portray a lot of stuff about the character of God and the nature of suffering, and when God opens the door of this 'Shack', it's a black woman. takes you by surprise for a moment, until you remember that the Bible doesn't say God is a man. or that he's white, or Jewish.

I suppose that because Jesus was a male and the Bible says that he was God in human form, people tend to fall into the trap of worshipping him just as a 'father' - when in fact there are plenty of reference that express his motherly qualities too.

To quote something that Jesus said to people who were asking him about the afterlife: "In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but become like angels". I think the implication there is pretty clear: in God's domain, biological qualities like gender are not applicable. Therefore, God is neither male nor female.

To quote something that Jesus said to people who were asking him about the afterlife: "In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but become like angels". I think the implication there is pretty clear: in God's domain, biological qualities like gender are not applicable. Therefore, God is neither male nor female.

There are so many unsubstantiated assumptions in that first statement that I don't really know where or how to respond.

To translate: in one human, as in non-divine, written account of a conversation that may or may not have occurred (but that was written down at least several years after the event even if it did occur) with a person that may or may not either have existed and/or have been the son of what is either an indefinable infinite or a vengeful superhuman smiter, there is a statement that marriage doesn't occur after death because people become like hypothetical creatures with no recognised definition, observed behaviour or tangible physical form. Based on that, there is an assumption that those ethereal creatures are genderless, rather than the equally plausible ideas that they are either inert or sex-obsessed and commitment phobic. Therefore, God is neither male nor female.

Sorry, you're free to believe whatever, and there are many different strands to thinking, but I get upset by attempts to present intuitive assumption as rational logic, especially by otherwise intelligent commentators.

G

I like this idea - it's right on the edge, but I agree it would have to be handled delicately. It's a minefield of people just waiting to be offended. This shouldn't stop you, though.
I suppose it depends on whether you make your God an external character or one that is the essence of everyone - along the lines of pantheism. The first approach would be easier to write, but I suppose you could tackle the second by making your narrator someone who is more in touch with this essence - an enlightened man.

Fascinating angle - hope you pursue it. Good luck with it.

And from the range of comments here, (we can't agree if God is male or female or what religion or ethnicity,) its only the start of a controversy, and we are a very small population.

Steerpike's Sister - please write it, anyway that seems right to you. I wish I had thought of it. I love that children's literature, which is what your writing is, can explore controversial concepts, and the fact that the writer is agnostic means that they have a freedom from fixed beliefs to do so.

I know more than half the problem with writing is paying the bills, which means that much has to be written with an eye to sales, but I personally would so love to see much more writing that doesn't fit accepted commercial parameters. That said, I attended a talk by Lee Weatherley who regards Angel as her break through novel.

I have a Gateway to Heaven in my wip and the direct action of an Almighty towards the end. I have a legend steeped in Christianity as the almost starting point of my story, but also being agnostic, I am wanting to bring in some of my own ideas - but then I've never sold any children's work anyway.