Why does God have a gender?

[nobspeople]

The bible speaks of God as a 'he' or 'him'.
Is it possible that's not true? Is it possible God is an 'it' more than a 'he' or even a 'she'?

If God is not a 'he', would that change how you think of 'him'?
Would it change anything about 'his' story?

I've seen some believers see this concept as offensive. Are you one of those people that are offended if God is spoken about as a 'it' or 'she'?

[The Tanager]

I think different people could paint it in different ways and all be 'correct' in doing so.

Exactly what do you mean by "correct"? In my mind this appears to show evidence that my understanding that individuals will experience what they believe because they will create their next experience [afterlife] based - in part - on the imagery of their beliefs.

I think the masculine/feminine split of characteristics (like strength or compassion) can itself be detrimental to society as a whole. But if a culture identifies strength with the masculine and not the feminine, then I think it is 'correct' to use a male image to speak of God's strength, because God does have strength. One can use that image to show truth about God even if God is not biologically male, or have a gray beard, etc.

I see in this no evidence for your above understanding. Rather than individuals creating their afterlife experience by their beliefs, I think the reality of eternity is meant to invade and change our current reality, constantly reshaping our inadequate images of God. I think God is the great iconoclast. Not because the images are incorrect in what they are meant to portray, but because they are incomplete.

In that particular case YHWH presents as a voice, much as YHWH did when YHWH was with Adam in the Garden of Eden. In the form of a voice. An audible voice from an invisible [formless] source.

....

Do you think this of all images attached to YHWH?

I'm not sure what you are asking me. Do I think this one best? What do I think of this one? Something else?

Your preference - what you considered the real of the two images, was The Creator being a male (emphasis mine) in a dominant position over the Earth.

That's the interpretation you put on that other image, not the one I did.

AS far as I remember, you did not explain what meaning you put on either image, except to imply one was real while the other you did not consider real.

The great thing about forums like this is that we don't have to rely on our memory.

Post #71:

I think other images would better reflect reality, but of the two, I'd choose the Jehovah's Witnesses imagery and, in the same logical breath, say that that does not mean I think God is male or that God is masculine alone and not feminine.

It should be clear that my preference, what I considered the more real of the two images was (at the least) not the Creator being a male, even if it was about God being in a dominant position over the Earth.

Post #100:

Why, they even expect to see this wonderous apparition enthroned while they prostrate themselves before it in awe, in the afterlife. You yourself admitted you supported the false image;

No I didn't. The images you offered me were that one and a picture of the earth from the perspective of the moon (or something like that). Of the two, the king on the throne is more like reality (as I believe it to be) because it shows a personal God loving creation rather than impersonal hunks of rock. If that picture had a queen upon the throne, I still would have chosen that picture over the other.

Here I give further insight into the meaning I put on the image and what gender had to do with my choosing it. These contain more than implying one was real and the other not.

Would it be fair observation that your interpretation of that image was conditioned due to similar images you have seen accompanying the idea of "a loving ruler-god"?

I don't remember seeing (or at least focusing on) similar (in the sense of pictures of male rulers) images to this. I'm more drawn to abstract art and written imagery. In written imagery, I focus on the idea of rulership over gender. I'm sure it is easier for me to do that, then it would be for a female, especially those who have felt (or identify Christianity with) the oppressive side of Christendom on that front.

So then, can you tell us which of the 2 images below you might immediately prefer over the other.

The male figure because (and the reason is very important, if you gloss over this than you are oversimplifying this complex question) (1) of the theological beliefs usually associated with raising a feminine image up, usually done to counteract the oppression that has risen out of a tradition dominated by masculine imagery, an oppression which I view as not inherent in the image or Bible itself or (2) the theological beliefs associated with a non-Christian-orthodox understanding of God.

Will you give us some examples of the images of YHWH you would prefer?

The crown itself, attached of course to a person weilding power, but unattached to any particular person that necessarily is gendered. The same for the throne. The cross because of what Jesus did. The dove, an image of the Holy Spirit's intimacy, the wind as well, the still small voice, fire and smoke, pure light. These are the first things that come to mind.

What is the name this "good-sized church" and the names of these "other Christian organizations" you are part of? Perhaps by studying their imagery we might better be able to understand your argument.

The point is that you can't understand it by only looking at imagery, you have to talk to the people (who come from diverse backgrounds) interpreting the imagery. I'm not sure how much imagery you will be able to find. But, sure, go ahead. Visit lifecharlotte.com for my local church. We did a sermon series on Rembrandt paintings once. There is InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Young Life, various other churches in different places I've lived, Lake Forest Church in the Charlotte area, Bibleproject.com, NT Wright, CS Lewis writings, and more if you are interested.

What is a 'feminist movement" and why are these movements the source of this Christian hesitancy?

Surely you have heard of feminism and the ways that some, not all feminists have rejected traditional orthodox Christian beliefs.

Is this orthodoxy then, closely related to masculine imagery of The Creator which these Christians feel is threatened by "Feminist Movements"?

I think some Christians feel it is more closely related than I think it really is. Just like I need the Great Iconoclast, God, when I raise images of the divine over the Divine itself.

How do you express this thinking to those Christians? Are you as forthcoming with them as you are being with us now, here in your writing?

I think there are two levels in my common approach. One concerns whether or not I know the person well or not. The second concerns whether the person I'm talking to is a Christian or not. In other words, I will speak the most forthrightly with older/stronger/more mature (using as synonyms) Christians that I know personally than anyone else.

How do you propose that this could be achieved? For example, in this thread a number of Christians have been shown to favor the masculine images of YHWH...how would you argue the case in order to try and assist them in changing their mind-set?

I have not seen any Christian saying that they believe God is male. Or that the oppression of females is right and Christian. I don't think we know enough about the images any Christians in this thread prefer over others and why they prefer them. To claim we do would be to rely primarily on speculation drawn from our own experiences, I think.

I think that is a fair assessment. Some argue that even insisting that the bible is "The Word of God" is one such way of trying to put The Creator in a "box". Would you agree with that?

I think one may try to put God in the box of their interpretation of the Bible, but that the Bible itself points to a God who will not be boxed in. The God of the Bible is constantly engaging humans in different ways throughout. Dreams, different kinds of visions, physical appearances, Jesus used mud to heal some blindnesses, sometimes not.

Sure. There is some rumor that they have even burned libraries...certainly they have burned books and records. But these are not comparable to burning Human Women.

I was referring to males also being burned (or killed in other ways).

I have not and will not argue for any official change. My argument is specific to individual beliefs which the individual can change of their own will. If that means rejecting current official images, so be it. We are looking for changes which give more positive consequence, so waiting on officials is only consistently shown to be a pointless proces to that end.

I don't think rejecting current official images for other images attached to other belief systems is the right move for individuals. I don't think that gives more positive consequences, but I'm fine using a female pronoun to talk to you, for instance, if the caveats are all understood. But, if those caveats are all understood, what need is there now for me to use the feminine pronoun to have constructive dialogue with you?

Examine how my use of the word "Her" when speaking of YHWH affects your understanding. Are you 'confused' by my using the feminine? Does it somehow work disfavorably for you to hear such? Is there a part of your psyche which resents or otherwise feels discomfort in that?

I'm not confused. I obviously don't know everything you attach to such a concept, but I'm not confused. The discomfort to me would simply be possible misunderstandings of each other's beliefs if we focused on pronouns over the worldview beliefs being discussed.

Are you able to examine WHY it has this affect on you?

Surely if "It" is able to commune with you, that is personal enough for you to not have to concern yourself. Out of interest, how would you refer to The Holy Ghost, since Spirits are neither 'male' or 'female'? Would "It" 'depersonalize' The Holy Spirit?

Because to me "it" are inanimate, impersonal things. Because I think God communes with me, "it" doesn't accurately describe God. The other reason to use "It" would be to try to counteract the damage down by people using He to oppress others, but I don't want to define my image of God in relation to human misuses of divine imagery.

In that, I would like to revisit your apparent dislike for the idea that YHWH can take on the form of a planet...because the image below;...

...goes a long way in removing the incorrect imagery of YHWH as - while it is taken from the moon - it is known to be a thriving intelligent community of life-forms on the face of something which is only regarded as 'a rock'...yet there is no reason why anyone cannot understand that YHWH can indeed inhabit the form of a planet [Earth as the leading example] and create from the inside out, as part of that process.

I see truth about God through the planet for sure, for God is life and Earth is full of life. I absolutely love nature and how it speaks of God's majesty, greatness, comforts, otherness, etc. Still, to me, it is not a living entity, it houses living entities, life being given to them by a personal God that cares for the planet and is, therefore, outside of the planet. Why stop at the planet? Why not the whole universe? I've seen some amazing photos of deep space. Still, I think God is outside all of that and caring for all of that.

[nobspeople]

It's interesting how such a simple question can cause such a ruffling of feathers.
Why?
Why does it matter if God's masculine, feminine, both, all or something else entirely?
For me, this points to the idea of the inability to fully understand such a being as God's said to be. Yet, here we have people saying they are right or they are wrong when it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things that I can see, at least.

[William]

I think different people could paint it in different ways and all be 'correct' in doing so.

Exactly what do you mean by "correct"? In my mind this appears to show evidence that my understanding that individuals will experience what they believe because they will create their next experience [afterlife] based - in part - on the imagery of their beliefs.

I think the masculine/feminine split of characteristics (like strength or compassion) can itself be detrimental to society as a whole.

Then we have perhaps found the reason for why humans have not been able to achieve benefit to society as a whole.

But if a culture identifies strength with the masculine and not the feminine, then I think it is 'correct' to use a male image to speak of God's strength, because God does have strength. One can use that image to show truth about God even if God is not biologically male, or have a gray beard, etc.

That alone sounds innocent enough, I agree. However, human beings are unique in that they appear not to possess the information as to 'how to act naturally' and resort to examining those animals which do, and mimicking what they see. They then transfer that onto their images of The Creator.

I see in this no evidence for your above understanding.

I thought I would mention it anyway. If there is life after death, then there is no reason to think that we each won't create an environment which most closely represents our beliefs and attitudes etc...it would not be an unjust fate and would lovingly serve a purpose.

Rather than individuals creating their afterlife experience by their beliefs, I think the reality of eternity is meant to invade and change our current reality, constantly reshaping our inadequate images of God. I think God is the great iconoclast. Not because the images are incorrect in what they are meant to portray, but because they are incomplete.

Indeed - so the act of the iconoclast [great or small] is a violent one and might be your thoughts thus projected onto the image of The Creator, rather than how The Creator actual opperates.
My way is longer more gentle [not contrived or pushed upon] and achieves the greater thing as an outcome [everyone gets through eventually] ...and all at the hands of the individual creating said next experience ensuring self responsibility is prioritised.

Do you think this of all images attached to YHWH?

I'm not sure what you are asking me. Do I think this one best? What do I think of this one? Something else?

We would have to revisit this.

Here I give further insight into the meaning I put on the image and what gender had to do with my choosing it. These contain more than implying one was real and the other not.

So then, can you tell us which of the 2 images below you might immediately prefer over the other.

The male figure because (and the reason is very important, if you gloss over this than you are oversimplifying this complex question) (1) of the theological beliefs usually associated with raising a feminine image up, usually done to counteract the oppression that has risen out of a tradition dominated by masculine imagery, an oppression which I view as not inherent in the image or Bible itself or (2) the theological beliefs associated with a non-Christian-orthodox understanding of God.

So what? Both those reasons appear excuses rather than logical necessities.

Will you give us some examples of the images of YHWH you would prefer?

The crown itself, attached of course to a person weilding power, but unattached to any particular person that necessarily is gendered.

So the image would look something like a [human?] form whos face and body are obscured enough that one could not tell if it were male or female?

The same for the throne. The cross because of what Jesus did. The dove, an image of the Holy Spirit's intimacy, the wind as well, the still small voice, fire and smoke, pure light. These are the first things that come to mind.

So you attach symbolism to the throne as a means of helping you identify the entity which sits on said throne?

What is the name this "good-sized church" and the names of these "other Christian organizations" you are part of? Perhaps by studying their imagery we might better be able to understand your argument.

The point is that you can't understand it by only looking at imagery, you have to talk to the people (who come from diverse backgrounds) interpreting the imagery. I'm not sure how much imagery you will be able to find. But, sure, go ahead. Visit lifecharlotte.com for my local church. We did a sermon series on Rembrandt paintings once. There is InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Young Life, various other churches in different places I've lived, Lake Forest Church in the Charlotte area, Bibleproject.com, NT Wright, CS Lewis writings, and more if you are interested.

Thanks. I think one can understand the underlying motivations of the individual by examining the imagery they most relate to as part of their overall belief structures.

What is a 'feminist movement" and why are these movements the source of this Christian hesitancy?

Surely you have heard of feminism and the ways that some, not all feminists have rejected traditional orthodox Christian beliefs.

So what? Why is rejection seen as a threat? What is the problem you have with someone rejecting Christianity when Christianity was the first entity which rejected the other [strong independent woman] entity.

Is this orthodoxy then, closely related to masculine imagery of The Creator which these Christians feel is threatened by "Feminist Movements"?

I think some Christians feel it is more closely related than I think it really is. Just like I need the Great Iconoclast, God, when I raise images of the divine over the Divine itself.

Great or small, an iconoclast is still the brute force, which - if seen to be an action of lovingkindness - is yet another example of false imagery.

I think that is a fair assessment. Some argue that even insisting that the bible is "The Word of God" is one such way of trying to put The Creator in a "box". Would you agree with that?

I think one may try to put God in the box of their interpretation of the Bible, but that the Bible itself points to a God who will not be boxed in. The God of the Bible is constantly engaging humans in different ways throughout. Dreams, different kinds of visions, physical appearances, Jesus used mud to heal some blindnesses, sometimes not.

This adds weight to my own position as someone who - like The Creator - cannot be boxed in and is able and willing to try different methods and adopt different images in order to get a clearer understanding of The Creator.

Sure. There is some rumor that they have even burned libraries...certainly they have burned books and records. But these are not comparable to burning Human Women.

I was referring to males also being burned (or killed in other ways).

Even so, what we are referring to is the action of Christians...

I have not and will not argue for any official change. My argument is specific to individual beliefs which the individual can change of their own will. If that means rejecting current official images, so be it. We are looking for changes which give more positive consequence, so waiting on officials is only consistently shown to be a pointless proces to that end.

I don't think rejecting current official images for other images attached to other belief systems is the right move for individuals.

Yet it would support the idea that The Creator cannot be kept in a box...

I don't think that gives more positive consequences, but I'm fine using a female pronoun to talk to you, for instance, if the caveats are all understood. But, if those caveats are all understood, what need is there now for me to use the feminine pronoun to have constructive dialogue with you?

Which is why I made the offer of referring to The Creator as "It" as a place of mutual agreement. Your response is that you cannot do so because that depersonalizes - because inanimate objects are referred to as 'it'.
So we have no word we can use, does not mean we need be stuck.

Examine how my use of the word "Her" when speaking of YHWH affects your understanding. Are you 'confused' by my using the feminine? Does it somehow work disfavorably for you to hear such? Is there a part of your psyche which resents or otherwise feels discomfort in that?

I'm not confused. I obviously don't know everything you attach to such a concept, but I'm not confused. The discomfort to me would simply be possible misunderstandings of each other's beliefs if we focused on pronouns over the worldview beliefs being discussed.

All the more reason why these should be dropped altogether.

Are you able to examine WHY it has this affect on you?

Surely if "It" is able to commune with you, that is personal enough for you to not have to concern yourself. Out of interest, how would you refer to The Holy Ghost, since Spirits are neither 'male' or 'female'? Would "It" 'depersonalize' The Holy Spirit?

Because to me "it" are inanimate, impersonal things. Because I think God communes with me, "it" doesn't accurately describe God.

Nor does "He" or "She"

Effectively these become boxes in which to place notions of The Creator in.

The other reason to use "It" would be to try to counteract the damage down by people using He to oppress others, but I don't want to define my image of God in relation to human misuses of divine imagery.

Even so, there is no avoiding it, since those atrocities have been committed and cannot be undone. The better choice would be to disengage with calling oneself "Christian" at all, since that label is well and truly shown to defile images of The Creator.

If indeed The Creator created male and female in Its image, the at the very least, one should refer to The Creator not as one or the other, but as both. Is there a word for that?

In that, I would like to revisit your apparent dislike for the idea that YHWH can take on the form of a planet...because the image below;...

...goes a long way in removing the incorrect imagery of YHWH as - while it is taken from the moon - it is known to be a thriving intelligent community of life-forms on the face of something which is only regarded as 'a rock'...yet there is no reason why anyone cannot understand that YHWH can indeed inhabit the form of a planet [Earth as the leading example] and create from the inside out, as part of that process.

I see truth about God through the planet for sure, for God is life and Earth is full of life. I absolutely love nature and how it speaks of God's majesty, greatness, comforts, otherness, etc. Still, to me, it is not a living entity, it houses living entities, life being given to them by a personal God that cares for the planet and is, therefore, outside of the planet.

Why superimpose and image over the earth which is not there to actually see, while at the same time deny what we can actually see as real?
We know know that The Earth created all of its life forms from the Earth Itself. Therefore we can rightfully claim that The Earth is indeed "a living entity". What is the problem with superimposing the image of The Creator Mind into the planet, and accept that this is how YHWH created life on Earth? There is nothing unbiblical in this approach, as the story of Creation in the Bible does not contradict said image.

If we take an image you are familiar with - as representing The Mind of The Creator;

[Context related to this image]

And superimpose this into an image of the planet Earth, we get this;


And is this so unlikely? [Just because it goes against the grain of what you have chosen to believe about the planet, does not mean it is not the truth of the matter.]

Why stop at the planet? Why not the whole universe? I've seen some amazing photos of deep space.

If we superimpose the Universe into the image of The Mind of The Creator, we get this;


and we would have to zoom in considerable to actually see the universe in the region of The Creators Mind that it exists.

Still, I think God is outside all of that and caring for all of that.

Do you think The Creator is 'outside' of Its own Mind? How is that 'personal' for you or I? In what logical way can we explain how this position is 'caring'? Certainly the imagery I give makes that personal quality an actual possibility. Not so much, with how you imagine it to being.

[William]

It's interesting how such a simple question can cause such a ruffling of feathers.
Why?
Why does it matter if God's masculine, feminine, both, all or something else entirely?
For me, this points to the idea of the inability to fully understand such a being as God's said to be. Yet, here we have people saying they are right or they are wrong when it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things that I can see, at least.

If it doesn't really matter to you, then why did you ask?

[Tcg]

If we take an image you are familiar with - as representing The Mind of The Creator;

It looks like one of those static balls they used to sell at Spencer Gifts in the mall.

And superimpose this into an image of the planet Earth, we get this;

We could do the same with Charlie Brown's head, a basket ball, a tomato or any number of roundish things.

And is this so unlikely? [Just because it goes against the grain of what you have chosen to believe about the planet, does not mean it is not the truth of the matter.]

Nor would it show that it is not the truth about Charlie Brown's head, a basket ball, a tomato or any number of roundish things.

Why stop at the planet? Why not the whole universe? I've seen some amazing photos of deep space.

If we superimpose the Universe into the image of The Mind of The Creator, we get this;



That's just the static ball without the background. This exercise so far has only shown that you can manipulate images in some interesting ways. This ability has been available to the general public ever since Photoshop was released:

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #156]

Images are generally used for the purpose of representing something in a way which is not meant to be taken literally, but conveys an idea I think you should know this but the content of your post - seems to disregard this, and your post seems to disregard the thread topic as well.

However, if you were simply trying to be humorous - then "lol"

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #156]

Images are generally used for the purpose of representing something in a way which is not meant to be taken literally, but conveys an idea I think you should know this but the content of your post - seems to disregard this, and your post seems to disregard the thread topic as well.

However, if you were simply trying to be humorous - then "lol"

I see. So then your photoshopish exercise was not intended to show anything literally about the earth, the universe, or the mind of the creator?


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #156]

Images are generally used for the purpose of representing something in a way which is not meant to be taken literally, but conveys an idea I think you should know this but the content of your post - seems to disregard this, and your post seems to disregard the thread topic as well.

However, if you were simply trying to be humorous - then "lol"

I see. So then your photoshopish exercise was not intended to show anything literally about the earth, the universe, or the mind of the creator?


Tcg

Rather, my use of the image of a static ball was for the purpose of imaging an idea related to The Mind of The Creator...if you go back to the original post you will see the words {"[Context related to this image]"} underneath the image, which is a link to said context.

Even so, if you went to the link and read the post, it may not mean much to you as it was specific to The Tanager [whom my post that you critiqued, was replying to] but nonetheless offered context which if you had read, might have made you pause and consider not making the comment that you did. Especially if you had read on, all the post that followed that post I linked.

I have no doubt that The Tanager will understand both my use of imagery and the context in which it is being used, which is what interests me, rather more than your seemingly pointless critique of my use of imagery interests me.

Do you have anything to add to the actual thread topic?

[Purple Knight]

We could do the same with Charlie Brown's head, a basket ball, a tomato or any number of roundish things.

This is actually an interesting point because, if we get the imagery wrong, clearly it has consequences. God is not (for example) a golden calf. Worshiping a golden calf is not worshiping God.

So clearly we can get the imagery wrong.

Does that also imply that it's possible to get the imagery right? That God actually has some sort of corporeal form?

Or am I just on the wrong track, because the people worshiping the golden calf were intending to worship the calf and not God; perhaps if they had built it as a representation of God it would have been fine. But this seems like a fine hair to split here.

[William]

We could do the same with Charlie Brown's head, a basket ball, a tomato or any number of roundish things.

This is actually an interesting point because, if we get the imagery wrong, clearly it has consequences. God is not (for example) a golden calf. Worshiping a golden calf is not worshiping God.

So clearly we can get the imagery wrong.

Does that also imply that it's possible to get the imagery right? That God actually has some sort of corporeal form?

Or am I just on the wrong track, because the people worshiping the golden calf were intending to worship the calf and not God; perhaps if they had built it as a representation of God it would have been fine. But this seems like a fine hair to split here.

Some have argued that God has no form and thus whatever image one creates has to be false - but in relation to 'worship' - to do so to any image of God must also [therefore] be worship of a false idol [image] be that the form of a calf [made of gold or not] or the form of a planet, or for that matter the form of a human being - male or female adult or child or combinations therein.

YHWH and Satan both are presented as separate individuals who seem to insist on being worshiped, but in that, it is unclear as to what worship is defined as in relation to this insistence, other than in regard to OT stipulation to do with worshiping...which appear to include/involve blood sacrifice.

Perhaps in that, it is all too easy to confuse YHWH with Satan...

Any entity demanding worship has to be false. Generally - biblical writ commends the worship of images attributed to YHWH condemns the worship of images attributed to the Devil...ir any other entity who is not YHWH...
I think any worship of any image - no matter what entity it is attributed to [God or Devil] - is worship of false images - in that there is no such thing as a true image of The Creator.