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'?

[nobspeople]

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.

Masculine forms are not only used to describe masculine qualities. In Spanish, paper is masculine while a table is feminine. This does not mean that people who use those terms think of paper as masculine rather than feminine or neutral. Notice this is a point against your principle that using a masculine term shows that "God is masculine" thus requiring you to reach your conclusion in another way to be a rational conclusion.

If "Father" in the history of that culture originated, for instance, to distinguish one's worldview from the religions that identified the feminine pronoun with a deification of nature, then Jesus' use of "Father" could be carrying that meaning through, rather than saying God is masculine as opposed to feminine or neutral. It is wrong to simply read our cultural understandings of gender dynamics and pronoun usage onto the Jewish culture and individuals like Jesus within that culture.

From what I've seen in many languages, the masculine, when used to discuss people, speak to the male gender (though I'm not fluent in all languages - there may be exceptions). This may, indeed, be true for that time and culture (which I said previously in this very thread, that I'm sure you saw).
So, until someone points out exactly that this wording does not refer to a masculine aspect of God in any way (which indeed may be the case), AND why that's not reflected correctly in the modern bible (why they use FATHER instead of a more gender neutral word, for example), I can only conclude it's masculine as known today as I don't make excuses for things to appease my POV.

[William]

No matter the arguments, when one considers the imagery of Christian thinking, the masculine is portrayed, and witches burn...women are distrusted [because the woman was tempted] Women are second to men. That is the current nature of the world of human beings...and women seem to go along with it, perhaps because daddy said so....

The masculine is seen to hold the greater portion of power and influence, so God must be shown to be male...

That is an oversimplification of Christian thinking. Yes, many Christians have played into the masculine over feminine imagery, which goes against the Biblical picture. Not all do. (Probably) every worldview has people who play into masculine over feminine or vice-versa.

I am simply considering the evidence in relation to mainstream. What you are referring to is likely an obscure form of Christian Thinking and then superimposing that onto the general consensus in an effort to 'show' that somehow the obscure represents the general 'Christian Thinking".

In realty, it does not...the 'Biblical Picture' of the image of God is framed in the masculine, regardless of whether you, I or anyone else personally feel that it should not be the case...

[The Tanager]

From what I've seen in many languages, the masculine, when used to discuss people, speak to the male gender (though I'm not fluent in all languages - there may be exceptions). This may, indeed, be true for that time and culture (which I said previously in this very thread, that I'm sure you saw).

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

So, until someone points out exactly that this wording does not refer to a masculine aspect of God in any way (which indeed may be the case), AND why that's not reflected correctly in the modern bible (why they use FATHER instead of a more gender neutral word, for example), I can only conclude it's masculine as known today as I don't make excuses for things to appease my POV.

What does it mean for something to be a "masculine" aspect of God? Our modern culture has many competing ideas. Cultures throughout history have competing ideas. I'm not asking you to argue for one over the other, but simply inform us of what concept(s) you tie to "masculine" here. Without knowing what you mean, I can't say whether I agree with what you are claiming.

[The Tanager]

I am simply considering the evidence in relation to mainstream. What you are referring to is likely an obscure form of Christian Thinking and then superimposing that onto the general consensus in an effort to 'show' that somehow the obscure represents the general 'Christian Thinking".

In realty, it does not...the 'Biblical Picture' of the image of God is framed in the masculine, regardless of whether you, I or anyone else personally feel that it should not be the case...

You made a blanket statement that was an oversimplification. I pointed that out. I didn't go to the opposite extreme and say or imply my view is the general consensus of Christians throughout history. I agree that masculine dominance is probably the historical majority, but the other veins of thought are not obscure.

In realty, it does not...the 'Biblical Picture' of the image of God is framed in the masculine, regardless of whether you, I or anyone else personally feel that it should not be the case...

What do you mean "framed in the masculine"? Define masculine.

[William]

I am simply considering the evidence in relation to mainstream. What you are referring to is likely an obscure form of Christian Thinking and then superimposing that onto the general consensus in an effort to 'show' that somehow the obscure represents the general 'Christian Thinking".

In realty, it does not...the 'Biblical Picture' of the image of God is framed in the masculine, regardless of whether you, I or anyone else personally feel that it should not be the case...

You made a blanket statement that was an oversimplification. I pointed that out.

I described what can be observed of general Christian Thinking. It is not my problem that in doing so an 'oversimplification' can be drawn from the observation. Blanket statements come with the territory as long as Christians present general consensus in their imagery. What have you got which shows us otherwise?

I didn't go to the opposite extreme and say or imply my view is the general consensus of Christians throughout history.

You implied it by claiming that what I wrote was "an oversimplification of Christian thinking."

I agree that masculine dominance is probably the historical majority, but the other veins of thought are not obscure.

They sure are obscure, especially in relation to what you have given us as evidence to support your assertion otherwise.

In realty, it does not...the 'Biblical Picture' of the image of God is framed in the masculine, regardless of whether you, I or anyone else personally feel that it should not be the case...

What do you mean "framed in the masculine"? Define masculine.

I am not defining masculine. Christianity has done this in relation to its imagery of God. I am simply showing images which are evidence of general Christian Thinking.

[William]

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.

Masculine forms are not only used to describe masculine qualities. In Spanish, paper is masculine while a table is feminine. This does not mean that people who use those terms think of paper as masculine rather than feminine or neutral. Notice this is a point against your principle that using a masculine term shows that "God is masculine" thus requiring you to reach your conclusion in another way to be a rational conclusion.

If "Father" in the history of that culture originated, for instance, to distinguish one's worldview from the religions that identified the feminine pronoun with a deification of nature, then Jesus' use of "Father" could be carrying that meaning through, rather than saying God is masculine as opposed to feminine or neutral. It is wrong to simply read our cultural understandings of gender dynamics and pronoun usage onto the Jewish culture and individuals like Jesus within that culture.

From what I've seen in many languages, the masculine, when used to discuss people, speak to the male gender (though I'm not fluent in all languages - there may be exceptions). This may, indeed, be true for that time and culture (which I said previously in this very thread, that I'm sure you saw).
So, until someone points out exactly that this wording does not refer to a masculine aspect of God in any way (which indeed may be the case), AND why that's not reflected correctly in the modern bible (why they use FATHER instead of a more gender neutral word, for example), I can only conclude it's masculine as known today as I don't make excuses for things to appease my POV.

When challenged sometimes some Christians resort to 'definitions' as if somehow their arguments are rescued by this ploy.
"How do you define such and such" etc - as if they themselves have not clearly defined God in the masculine...the evidence is there for all to see and some to know...its almost as if their personal 'Christianity" is seen by them to being "The One" to follow after, but in as much as that is the implication presented, there is no accompanying evidence as to their own definitions...but if they are genuine, they would be best to drop the "Christian" definition of their beliefs and move on rather than trying to superimpose their obscurity onto the main framework of Christianity General - that which has clearly defined itself in the eyes of the world for over 2000 years already...



If you would never do this to a woman, think about calling yourself something other than a Christian.

[William]

[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...?

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I like the way that the Roman Catholic Catechism sums it up: “God is neither man nor woman: he is God.”

This view is almost universal within orthodox Christianity.

That would read “God is neither man nor woman: she is God.”

[William]

[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.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #9]

Perhaps this is the only way people nowadays would think of using such pronouns, but that is our culture, not theirs. What do you have to say about my point concerning the Goddess cults that deified nature? The Hebrew view of God was not of that type, but one who transcends nature. Therefore, it makes more sense to me that the masculine pronoun was used to separate their idea of God from the religions built on deifying nature through feminine pronouns. Rather than a patriarchal system trying to oppress women, the Hebrews were reacting against a prior cultural decision to attach the feminine pronoun with certain beliefs about God that they rejected.

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.

Which image is easier to attach a masculine idea to?

This:


or This:


And which image reflects realty best?