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]

[Replying to William in post #66]

I want to make sure you understand that I'm not arguing that Christianity uses more or as much feminine imagery as masculine. I'm talking about viewing God as male rather than female. There is a difference between using more masculine imagery than feminine imagery to depict God and actually believing that God is male in gender. Definitions are helpful to get at differences so that arguments can then be more clearly made and understood. Avoid clear definitions and you avoid rational discussion. Definitions have nothing to do with saving an argument.

You are showing images where God is depicted in masculine ways. Actual Christian teachings, the large majority of the wide array of views that fall under the huge umbrella term of Christianity, do not claim God is male. bjs1 shared the Roman Catholic catechism as one example of this. Roman Catholicism is one of the mainstream Christian groups.

If you understand my claim and are disagreeing with me on that claim, then you would have to be saying that Christian imagery implies that Christians believe God is male. Christians don't say they believe God is male. When asked directly, official mainstream Christian groups will say God has no gender. I'll trust what Christian teachings claim, rather than an outsider's interpretation of what Christian pictures tell us about Christian teachings. Christians know what pictures they use and they still claim that God is not male. It's not an inconsistency, either. It's that you attach something to those images that Christians don't ascribe to.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #64]

Jesus isn't talking about people, but the Creator of all that exists, that made males and females in His image.

What makes you believe that?

And since there are males and females of most critters the creator created, is this what is being implied? Or is it - as most Christian Thinking follows, specific to human beings...?

In case you are unaware, the context of the conversation with nobspeople in which I said the above is Matthew 6:9, the Lord's prayer that begins "Our Father in heaven". Jesus is teaching His disciples to pray. The Gospels present Jesus as believing in the YHWH of the Jewish scriptures. YHWH was viewed as the Creator of all that exists. The beginning text of the Jewish scriptures is Genesis. Genesis 1:27 says that God created male and female humans in His image.

[Replying to The Tanager in post #9]

The Bible also uses feminine imagery of God in other places. If the authors were all that concerned about seeing God as male, then they wouldn't have used those images, especially as the culture became more and more patriarchal.

Where - please quote some script to verify this is the actual case...specifically is there any use of the word 'she' when speaking of God, as there is the use of the word 'he'? If so, then yes - you make a great point.

Did you read post #7?

Again this is where burn the witch derives - for not only were they strong independent women but they also saw God in Nature [Goddess] and this "rejection" of the idea of God and Nature being one and the same was something which both Hebrews and later Christians violently suppressed through murder. Indeed, religions separating the Creator from the Creation have always used such heavy handed methods in order to be the top predator and dominator of the Earth.

I completely agree with your stance against Hebrews and Christians violently suppressing other worldviews in any way. But suppression is not simply done by religions that seperate Creator from Creation. There is a history of suppression in India with its pantheism and panentheisms, for instance. Atheist regimes suppress, too. Those facts say nothing of which view is true.

Which image is easier to attach a masculine idea to?

And which image reflects realty best?

One could attach many different "masculine" ideas to the first one, most easily, of course, however one wants to define "masculine."

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.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #66]

I want to make sure you understand that I'm not arguing that Christianity uses more or as much feminine imagery as masculine. I'm talking about viewing God as male rather than female. There is a difference between using more masculine imagery than feminine imagery to depict God and actually believing that God is male in gender. Definitions are helpful to get at differences so that arguments can then be more clearly made and understood. Avoid clear definitions and you avoid rational discussion. Definitions have nothing to do with saving an argument.

Only problem with that of course is that definitions are like interpretations and one can interpret that God is a being with form and that is clearly the case in relation to those who witnessed YHWH of olden times. He is not referred to as "she", ever.

Even if one were to argue that God is actually a Spirit, and as such has no specific gender, calling that Spirit a "he" adds those connotations automatically, especially with the idea one form is made in the image of another form.
The way around that is to say that it is NOT the forms which the bible is saying are 'made in the image of God" but the spirit which indwells those forms and animates those forms. [the Creators breath [Spirit] as mentioned in Genesis] which is the image being referred to.

You are showing images where God is depicted in masculine ways. Actual Christian teachings, the large majority of the wide array of views that fall under the huge umbrella term of Christianity, do not claim God is male. bjs1 shared the Roman Catholic catechism as one example of this. Roman Catholicism is one of the mainstream Christian groups.

If this were the actual truth, we would not have a statement [or artworks] from the Catholics which refer to God in the masculine. "He" and never "She"... as in "God is neither male nor female, HE is God." "He" is a masculine identifier.

If you understand my claim and are disagreeing with me on that claim, then you would have to be saying that Christian imagery implies that Christians believe God is male. Christians don't say they believe God is male. When asked directly, official mainstream Christian groups will say God has no gender. I'll trust what Christian teachings claim, rather than an outsider's interpretation of what Christian pictures tell us about Christian teachings. Christians know what pictures they use and they still claim that God is not male. It's not an inconsistency, either. It's that you attach something to those images that Christians don't ascribe to.

That is rubbish. If what you say about Christian beliefs were the truth of the matter, then we would see it in their images. What we see in their images is consistent with their obvious underlying beliefs, [whatever they claim to the contrary] and to deny this is the case, is deception. Trying to pin that on the observer as 'observers interpretation' is reprehensible. Own it or deny it but don't you try pinning that on me as a misrepresentation on my part.

What might be going on [if what you say is true about Christian mainstream] is that for some unidentified reason, Christians tolerate false imagery of God while at the same time understanding that 'God does not look like that". Either way, it is a thing which Christians are confused about - not me. I am simply reporting what I am shown, and how it is shown to me.

Again this is where burn the witch derives - for not only were they strong independent women but they also saw God in Nature [Goddess] and this "rejection" of the idea of God and Nature being one and the same was something which both Hebrews and later Christians violently suppressed through murder. Indeed, religions separating the Creator from the Creation have always used such heavy handed methods in order to be the top predator and dominator of the Earth.

I completely agree with your stance against Hebrews and Christians violently suppressing other worldviews in any way. But suppression is not simply done by religions that seperate Creator from Creation. There is a history of suppression in India with its pantheism and panentheisms, for instance. Atheist regimes suppress, too. Those facts say nothing of which view is true.

So what? I am not arguing that. Rather I am wondering why Christians participate in such reprehensible practice and continue to hold onto false images which support such practice. all the while claiming to follow The Truth.

Which image is easier to attach a masculine idea to?

And which image reflects realty best?

One could attach many different "masculine" ideas to the first one, most easily, of course, however one wants to define "masculine."

Hide behind definitions all you want but it doesn't help your argument at all.

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.

That you support the toleration of false imagery is no surprise to me. I do not accept the deception myself, preferring The Truth over the false.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #73]

Some of your points I have nothing to add to that I've not already said. Thank you for sharing your view. There are a few things I think worth going further on.

1. What do you think about the feminine imagery applied to God in the Bible which I listed in post 7? I do think Christians should raise up these images more than they publicly do.

2. Addressing the issues surrounding continued Christian use of masculine images and pronouns versus the alternatives. I think there is a difference between the use in individual conversations and use in official Church teachings, creeds, etc. I think it is best to continue to use masculine pronouns for God in official documents because I think:

(a) there is often theological baggage [not meant pejoratively] with those who have chosen to use "She" or "It" that are not a part of orthodox Christianity,

(b) that this would wrongly present historical Christian beliefs as viewing God as male, when they do not, [although Christians need to do a better job of calling out the elements within Christianity that use this imagery to oppress, point to male dominance, etc.]

(c) it would add to what I see as the dangers of having "masculine" and "feminine" categories, where characteristics shared by both sexes (say, strength or comfort) are wrongly narrowed to one category.

The difference in individual talking, I think, is that different pronouns can be used because the individual is able to distinguish why they are using it from the above possible misunderstandings I mentioned above.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #64]

Jesus isn't talking about people, but the Creator of all that exists, that made males and females in His image.

Perhaps. But the issue remains he used a masculine word to describe God his (apparent) father and not another term. That's telling IMO.

What does it mean for something to be a "masculine" aspect of God?

You'd have to ask Jesus as he's the one that said it. I'm simply following the word he used, as described in the bible which, with the modern version, is said to be edited and translated correctly.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #67]

When challenged sometimes some Christians resort to 'definitions' as if somehow their arguments are rescued by this ploy.

Absolutely. We've all seen it too many times. It's disingenuous at best. And outright lie at worst. But that should be expected when one has to defend something that doesn't fit society's current POV. I just wish they'd be honest about it - it would go a long way in increasing their credibility.
I've said it before and will again: If one's faith in their belief is so strong, stand by it no matter how politically incorrect it may be at the time. At least many of the original Christians firmly stood up for their beliefs. But this is yet another way society is causing Christianity to evolve, unlike the 'rock' it's said to be founded upon.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #75]

What does it tell you? My claim is that it does not tell us that Jesus thought God was male. Do you disagree with that claim? If so, then why?

[The Tanager]

When challenged sometimes some Christians resort to 'definitions' as if somehow their arguments are rescued by this ploy.

Absolutely. We've all seen it too many times. It's disingenuous at best. And outright lie at worst. But that should be expected when one has to defend something that doesn't fit society's current POV. I just wish they'd be honest about it - it would go a long way in increasing their credibility.
I've said it before and will again: If one's faith in their belief is so strong, stand by it no matter how politically incorrect it may be at the time. At least many of the original Christians firmly stood up for their beliefs. But this is yet another way society is causing Christianity to evolve, unlike the 'rock' it's said to be founded upon.

When challenged many people will act as though their definition is the default one. I will question why that should be the definition. That's not disingenuous, it's not a lie, it's not any of the other stuff you said. You and William here are giving empty rhetoric that amounts to begging the question in your favor, which is irrational. And I'm simply asking for clarification to see if I've misunderstood your point.

[nobspeople]

When challenged sometimes some Christians resort to 'definitions' as if somehow their arguments are rescued by this ploy.

Absolutely. We've all seen it too many times. It's disingenuous at best. And outright lie at worst. But that should be expected when one has to defend something that doesn't fit society's current POV. I just wish they'd be honest about it - it would go a long way in increasing their credibility.
I've said it before and will again: If one's faith in their belief is so strong, stand by it no matter how politically incorrect it may be at the time. At least many of the original Christians firmly stood up for their beliefs. But this is yet another way society is causing Christianity to evolve, unlike the 'rock' it's said to be founded upon.

When challenged many people will act as though their definition is the default one. I will question why that should be the definition. That's not disingenuous, it's not a lie, it's not any of the other stuff you said. You and William here are giving empty rhetoric that amounts to begging the question in your favor, which is irrational. And I'm simply asking for clarification to see if I've misunderstood your point.

I don't recall myself or William (though I don't want to speak for them) calling you out by name, so the need to be a martyr here is questionable and telling as there are more on this site, and on this planet, than you.

I've clarified my stance on the subject of this thread multiple times - it's "unfortunate" that you either don't or won't "get" that. I've been open to being shown my thinking wrong (something some participating on this thread don't seem to be able to do) and have this far only been challenged with 'well, what's YOUR definition of it (it, being something someone else said)?'

Thus, making continuing conversations with those individual pointless.
Have a great day and happy posting

[William]

[Replying to William in post #73]

1. What do you think about the feminine imagery applied to God in the Bible which I listed in post 7? I do think Christians should raise up these images more than they publicly do.

I don't think the Bible presents God as being gendered.

It has been specifically pointed out to you where this is the case, and you seem to want to ignore that. How do you think "Christians should raise up these images more than they publicly do" when you obviously resist doing this yourself on a public forum?

A key text for God not being any gender is Gen. 1:27 where both male and female are created in God's image.

I have already answered that one in this thread. YHWH is either [in form] an hermaphrodite [see "Inspired By YHWH" thread] or the image refers to the Creators Breath [in spirit] and not the forms at all.

Female imagery is used to talk about God in some places in the Bible as well. Hosea 13:8 compares God to a mama bear being robbed of her cubs.

Yet resorts to the masculine immediately after that in relation to avenging the theft.

“I will meet them as a bear that is bereaved of her whelps, and will rend the caul of their heart, and there will I devour them like a lion: the wild beast shall tear them.”

Clearly imagery which also compares YHWH - not to human beings ,but to wild animals. Lets see what else the bible has to say about devouring lions...oh yes, here 'tis;

your adversary the devil walketh about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

seems like a connection between the devil and YHWH - perhaps it is no coincidence that Jesus claimed the religious Jews of his day followed the devil thinking it was the image of The Creator.

Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

False images of The Creator are lies which, as history shows plainly, often led to murder.

Deut 32:18 says God gave birth to us.

Well yes - if the Rock referred to is the Earth, and the Earth is regarded as a Mother. [Mother Earth] then;

“Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.”

could be seen in that light. God [Goddess] is Mother Earth. Only Christians burned witches for thinking such a thing...so it is unlikely Christians would be able to see it in that light.
So even therein the word "God" this is a masculine label.

Isaiah 42:14 compares God to a woman in labor,

I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once.

This from someone who - without examining all the evidence - cursed Woman [in a knee-jerk fashion] with having to suffer excruciating pain in labour? [Link to details about that incident] And here again an image of a creator who is consumed with the need to devour and destroy - I wonder if women in labour actually feel the same emotions to want to devour and destroy, because of their pain in labour?
I think this is obviously written from a masculine pov. From the pen of someone who has no idea what Women think and feel when they are in labour but still thinks his opinion has merit. A male projecting what he would be thinking and feeling if he were the one having the baby...

Isaiah 49:15 to a nursing mother,

Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.

Clearly the writ is saying that "yes a nursing mother can forget and have no compassion for her child - whereas YHWH could never do such a thing!" Clearly YHWH was not being compared to a nursing mother at all! You are confused!

and 66:13 to a comforting mother.

In reading from the beginning of the chapter, this seems to be a proclamation of Zion being as the suckling mother to the Children of Zion...

In Psalm 123:2-3 God is compared to a master as well as a mistress.

Behold, as the eyes of servants [look] unto the hand of their masters, [and] as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes [wait] upon the LORD our God, until that he have mercy upon us.
Have mercy upon us, O LORD, have mercy upon us: for we are exceedingly filled with contempt.

This is about how they view things rather than how The Creator views things. [so OUR eyes look upon...]

In Psalm 131:2 David says his soul is like a weaned child with its mother, seemingly talking about God.

“Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child.”

No wonder you did not provide anything other than where these passages can be found. Were you to have quoted these as I have now done, your argument would have fallen on its face without my [tireless] help!
So what is David saying here? "I don't need your mothers milk now YHWH...I am all growed up!" Time for the Father to come forth and be that image of God for me! [The Mother is weak]

Jesus compares himself to a mother hen in Matt 23:37.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Perhaps because "O Jerusalem" chose to image YHWH as a man - a "he" - referred to in the masculine [but apparently you think there are possible conflicting definitions regarding what 'masculine' means]

If this is true, then why not use the title "Mother," "Queen," and the like? If this Biblical movement originated in our culture, [being male] may be the reason behind using "Father" instead of "Mother" (we probably wouldn't use the term "King," very often at all because of our power structures.) But back then the Mother Goddess cults tied "Mother" to the view that deifies Nature, which mixed economic security with religious ecstasy and sex. The Hebrew God was not like that. He transcends nature, the Divine being separate from nature. Thus, the term "Father" isn't a glorification of human males and fathers over women and mothers. If it were, then why use the above imagery to speak of God in motherly ways? Whether speaking in masculine or feminine ways, these are images for God, not a statement on God's gendered reality.

I have not argued otherwise. I have pointed out the deficit in imaging YHWH at all, in any way. The predominant way the image of The Creator is portrayed in the bible is masculine, and your feeble attempt to show otherwise has only resulted in your argument digging an even deeper hole for yourself to shout up from. As a result, your voice is getting lost in the echoing...

The more truthful response would be for you to accept that yes indeed, these multitude of Christians who do not image God as a male figurehead are a fictional creation in your head, rather than an actuality.

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;
and preferred it to the real thing.

False Worshipers = Vainglorious worship of a false image - a projection of themselves clothing the male-god effigy..
They are welcome to it [ I say] because they deserve to experience all that they make of it - the full repercussion of their stubborn resistance to The Truth through the method of willful ignorance in which they apply.

eg;

"What do you mean when you use the word "Masculine"? Perhaps you are not using it in the same way that I am"

To that end they shall go.

Indeed. I am exposing The Truth hidden beneath the deception of Christian Imagery and their confused mish-mash of contrary beliefs related directly to that false imagery.

[William]

When challenged sometimes some Christians resort to 'definitions' as if somehow their arguments are rescued by this ploy.

Absolutely. We've all seen it too many times. It's disingenuous at best. And outright lie at worst. But that should be expected when one has to defend something that doesn't fit society's current POV. I just wish they'd be honest about it - it would go a long way in increasing their credibility.
I've said it before and will again: If one's faith in their belief is so strong, stand by it no matter how politically incorrect it may be at the time. At least many of the original Christians firmly stood up for their beliefs. But this is yet another way society is causing Christianity to evolve, unlike the 'rock' it's said to be founded upon.

When challenged many people will act as though their definition is the default one. I will question why that should be the definition. That's not disingenuous, it's not a lie, it's not any of the other stuff you said. You and William here are giving empty rhetoric that amounts to begging the question in your favor, which is irrational. And I'm simply asking for clarification to see if I've misunderstood your point.

I don't recall myself or William (though I don't want to speak for them) calling you out by name, so the need to be a martyr here is questionable and telling as there are more on this site, and on this planet, than you.

I've clarified my stance on the subject of this thread multiple times - it's "unfortunate" that you either don't or won't "get" that. I've been open to being shown my thinking wrong (something some participating on this thread don't seem to be able to do) and have this far only been challenged with 'well, what's YOUR definition of it (it, being something someone else said)?'

Thus, making continuing conversations with those individual pointless.
Have a great day and happy posting

Effectively it is the very tactic employed which maketh that so. Such do not actually WANT to engage with those who speak truth against the deception of the beliefs they hold close to their faithful hearts. I feel a bit sorry for folk who do this ignorantly [in good faith] but have no such feelings toward those who do so willfully. Who are shown The Truth and who still deny it as such, because it contradicts their immovable beliefs.

Why do such exist? Obviously to spur on [encourage] those who are seeking The Truth, to see and reject the lie which covers The Truth, for without the lie, how is The Truth to be known?

The difference is minute - in that one thinks the lie is The Truth while the other does not.

It is indeed a [rather pointless] lie to claim that the bible clearly is not portraying an image of a masculine Creator. Own it Christians. Ya'll contributed to its maintained creation. Claiming/pretending it is not the case, only shows us what your hearts are full of...and the murderous intent which develops only from such hearts. The stuff that nails gods to logs.