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'?

[Purple Knight]

I still maintain that it would have been a huge pill to swallow for the ancient Jews to consider anything the Lord their God except a male human.

This is not true of ancient Judaism or modern Judaism.


“Although the Gender of God in Judaism is referred to in the Tanakh with masculine imagery and grammatical forms, traditional Jewish philosophy does not attribute the concept of sex to God.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of ... ite_note-1


“Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d's body (the Hand of G-d, G-d's wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d's body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d's actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world.”
https://www.jewfaq.org/g-d.htm


The Medieval document Rambam's Guide for the Perplexed is largely dedicated to explaining these anthropomorphic representations in the Jewish text, and repeatedly points out that God has no sex.

That's doesn't contradict what I said. God not in fact having a gender (which makes the entire thread irrelevant) doesn't speak to whether ancient Jews would have accepted a woman as The Lord their God. Maybe they would have but I don't think God is in the business of making things unnecessarily difficult for them. At one point in Genesis I believe this being appears to them and they wash its feet. Again, because women have a submissive role in their culture, there's no reason to believe they didn't see a man (for their own benefit) or that they didn't just say he because that's what they saw. That doesn't mean it's true that God is male. It just means it may have appeared as male for their benefit.

The link actually says, one of these men was God in human form. Men. They are men. At least, they appear as men. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and saying they did this for Abraham's benefit. If the Amazons had been Chosen as God's People instead I'm sure it would have appeared as a woman.

Thank you, well then with your kind permission I have indeed decided to see it that way. With one breath you say the ancients needed their gods to be male and then state that female godesses were relativley common and provide a long list of ancient female gods to illustrates your point.

And you took an error I made that was basically irrelevant to the point and focused on it. I don't even think everyone would say it was an error to say primitive people were generally patriarchal and wouldn't have accepted a female god. But it was an error so I admitted it. As you point out there were exceptions.

That doesn't really affect the point though. The ancient Jews were patriarchal and women were supposed to be submissive. They were not supposed to be lords. Appearing as a woman might have done nothing but confuse them, and even if they would have accepted it, it's not in the business of making obeying it overly difficult. (By this I mean, deciding who they ought to obey; sometimes I'm sure it demands difficult actions but that's not what I'm talking about.)

For some bloody reason God doesn't regularly appear as anything other than a human male. For some bloody reason it doesn't regularly appear as a serpent or a woman or anything else. Maybe, just maybe, that's in order not to confuse people. Imagine if God chose a different form every day to appear as, and the Serpent in Eden had been like, "No it's okay I'm God this is what I look like today I changed my mind you can totally eat it."

[bjs1]

That's doesn't contradict what I said. God not in fact having a gender (which makes the entire thread irrelevant) doesn't speak to whether ancient Jews would have accepted a woman as The Lord their God.

The sources I quoted did not saying anything about God in fact having a gender. They pointed out that Jews, both ancient and modern, did not think of God as having a gender. While God was described with masculine imagery and pronouns, as you correctly pointed out, the ancient Jews did not contribute the concept of sex to God.

So it is true that the ancient Jews would not have accepted a woman as the Lord their God, they also would not have accepted a literal male as the Lord their God.

[Purple Knight]

The sources I quoted did not saying anything about God in fact having a gender.

Not having a gender. Not is what I said. There's no way if that entity exists it's literally male. Q probably isn't male either (as we understand it), but he shows up as one, and is played by a male actor and everyone just calls him he. Is that horrible? Are we misgendering someone? I don't think so. I think superbeings who appear to us are going to appear within the limits of our concepts 1) so we can even perceive them at all and 2) to make it easier for us.

Appearing as a naked man would also make things unnecessarily difficult. People during that time wore clothes. So I'm sure Abraham saw clothes on God. I'm sure God wanted Abraham to see those clothes, to make it easier for Abraham. Women were not equal to men so a superior being appearing as a woman would have done the same thing appearing as a naked man would have done: It would have caused needless confusion.

They pointed out that Jews, both ancient and modern, did not think of God as having a gender. While God was described with masculine imagery and pronouns, as you correctly pointed out, the ancient Jews did not contribute the concept of sex to God.

So it is true that the ancient Jews would not have accepted a woman as the Lord their God, they also would not have accepted a literal male as the Lord their God.

God showed up as a man and Abraham accepted him as God. Would Abraham have accepted a woman? Maybe, but why upset his cultural norms and make him uncomfortable if you don't have to? That was my basic answer and it's not wrong. I'm sorry I had to phrase it as people being primitive, but they treated their daughters like property, so yes it upsets me. I don't blame them, they didn't know any better, but it upsets me.

I'm sure the highest ancient Jewish philosophers don't think God is literally male, but God doesn't always appear to philosophers.

[William]

YHWH is able to presume whatever form required for whatever reason and is not bound to human gender identification.

The flesh is just the flesh - an instrument in which to do works through and create. Scientifically the forms of human female and male have been shown to have obvious differences, but these are not specific to anything which can be identified as 'only male' or 'only female' -

One can also understand that YHWH can even wear the form of Hermaphrodite and in this, "make them in our own image" male and female...just separate bodies....rather than the same body...to "create in our image" [likeness but with differences]...etc

[mukta2]

Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is Allah—One ˹and Indivisible˺;
Allah—the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺.
He has never had offspring, nor was He born.
And there is none comparable to Him.”
[ Surah Ekhlsh , Al Quranr]
https://quran.com/112

[nobspeople]

Thanks to all that have contributed to this thread. Most, if not all points, I find interesting and valid to varying degrees.
This morning, I was watching a documentary and the main interviewees were STRONG Christians (annoyingly so but that's another matter). More than once, the prayed on camera, citing 'Our Father...', 'Thank you, Father...' and so on.
It made me wonder about that. Of course, most if not all the replies to this post could be attributed to this 'father' wording, but I remembered Matt 6. In part, it's says Jesus said: " “This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven...". It says FATHER here and, if the bible is to be believed as true, Jesus calls God Father. That's male, not female, not gender neutral. But male.

Does anyone have the original wording to provide reference?
Is this simply a translation issue, and the original is not gender specific?
If so, why would God allow such a mis-translation?
Thoughts?

[The Tanager]

Thanks to all that have contributed to this thread. Most, if not all points, I find interesting and valid to varying degrees.
This morning, I was watching a documentary and the main interviewees were STRONG Christians (annoyingly so but that's another matter). More than once, the prayed on camera, citing 'Our Father...', 'Thank you, Father...' and so on.
It made me wonder about that. Of course, most if not all the replies to this post could be attributed to this 'father' wording, but I remembered Matt 6. In part, it's says Jesus said: " “This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven...". It says FATHER here and, if the bible is to be believed as true, Jesus calls God Father. That's male, not female, not gender neutral. But male.

Does anyone have the original wording to provide reference?
Is this simply a translation issue, and the original is not gender specific?
If so, why would God allow such a mis-translation?
Thoughts?

The original is a masculine term, 'Pater'. Using a male term is different than calling someone a male, though.

[nobspeople]

Thanks to all that have contributed to this thread. Most, if not all points, I find interesting and valid to varying degrees.
This morning, I was watching a documentary and the main interviewees were STRONG Christians (annoyingly so but that's another matter). More than once, the prayed on camera, citing 'Our Father...', 'Thank you, Father...' and so on.
It made me wonder about that. Of course, most if not all the replies to this post could be attributed to this 'father' wording, but I remembered Matt 6. In part, it's says Jesus said: " “This, then, is how you should pray: “‘Our Father in heaven...". It says FATHER here and, if the bible is to be believed as true, Jesus calls God Father. That's male, not female, not gender neutral. But male.

Does anyone have the original wording to provide reference?
Is this simply a translation issue, and the original is not gender specific?
If so, why would God allow such a mis-translation?
Thoughts?

The original is a masculine term, 'Pater'. Using a male term is different than calling someone a male, though.

If the original is a masculine term, there must be a reason it was used, apparently by Jesus himself, than an other available term.

So this would tend to show God is masculine, having masculine qualities, not feminine or neutral (even though some earlier biblical writings point to a more feminine status as outlined earlier in this tread). Thus, according to Jesus, God is masculine or the biblical writing isn't totally correct.

[JehovahsWitness]

So this would tend to show God is masculine, having masculine qualities..

What are "masculine qualities" (as opposed to "feminine qualities")? Could you a few so we can see what you are referring to?

[nobspeople]

So this would tend to show God is masculine, having masculine qualities..

What are "masculine qualities"? Could you a few so we can see what you are referring to?

Seems to vary from culture to culture and time to time. I suspect it would be masculine qualities of the time Jesus spoke those words, as opposed to feminine qualities of the time.
Or, we could surmise it's masculine qualities that encompass all time.
Considering Jesus said it, probably best to ask him to what he was referring.