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'?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #82]

Not to forget that his tactic does come with the expression along the lines of "I only want to know what you mean by 'such and such' in order that I can agree or disagree with your argument" which is to imply that your argument is rendered "illogical", or somehow falsely based upon some "misunderstanding" of that which is being critiqued...

Are you suggesting that "agreeing or disagreeing with an argument" based on said argument being "illogical" or because of a evident misunderstanding of that which is being critiqued, has no place in debate? Would the above not be the very essence of debate, ie challenge (or agree) with that which can be shown to be inaccurate or illogical based on what bas been said?




JW

Not at all. {snip}

..... Well then I have no issue with your post. I feel no compulsion to defend any other posters actions but if you feel I am guilty improper debating technique, feel free to specifically quote my post and say what the problem is with it's content. I feel no compulsion to respond to every post written.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

False imag[e]s such as the one exampled from the Jehovahs Witnesses catelog of art, used by me as evidence that indeed The Creater is presented in the masculine...

Emphasis MINE

How do you propose to prove a image is "false"? Based on what do you make such an accusation ? What is the rationale you employ to pronounce any given piece of art is "false"? Could it be that you are confusing "false" with a personal "distaste" ?


FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Jehovah's Witnesses illustrators are usually presenting their artistic interpretation of scripture or some other aspect connected to Christian living.






JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

To learn more please go to posts related to ...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS ARTWORK , APPEARANCE OF JESUS and ...DEPICTIONS OF YHWH

[Tcg]

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Jehovah's Witnesses illustrators are usually presenting their artistic interpretation of scripture or some other aspect connected to Christian living.

Usually presenting their artistic interpretations? Based on that readers are to assume these images are an accurate presentation of reality?

Let me present my artistic interpretation of God:










Yep, that's about it. Given that it is my artistic interpretation of God, it carries as much weight as any other.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Jehovah's Witnesses illustrators are usually presenting their artistic interpretation of scripture or some other aspect connected to Christian living.

Based on that readers are to assume these images are an accurate presentation of reality?

No, based on that readers are supposed to assume these images are artistic interpretations of scripture or some other aspect connected to Christian living.

[Tcg]

FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Jehovah's Witnesses illustrators are usually presenting their artistic interpretation of scripture or some other aspect connected to Christian living.

Usually presenting their artistic interpretations? Based on that readers are to assume these images are an accurate presentation of reality?

No, readers are supposed to assume these images are artistic interpretations of scripture or some other aspect connected to Christian living.

I see. You are suggesting readers should assume this absent of any evidence that they reflect any connection to reality. Why should they accept JW's artistic interpretations instead of mine?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Why should they accept JW's artistic interpretations instead of mine?

Did anybody ask them to?

Given that it is my artistic interpretation of God, it carries as much weight as any other.

Did I suggest otherwise? Art is "art", not science or maths....ART! The artist has read a scripture (or considered a thought or situation) and used his or her imagination to create an image. You can like it or dislike it...or possibly decide it doesn't properly represent what it is supposedly being illustrated, but from there to an implied claim of true or false is entirely outside of the scope of artistic expression.

To learn more please go to posts related to ...

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS ARTWORK , APPEARANCE OF JESUS and ...DEPICTIONS OF YHWH

[Tcg]

Why should they accept JW's artistic interpretations instead of mine?

Did anybody ask them to?

Given that it is my artistic interpretation of God, it carries as much weight as any other.

Did I suggest otherwise? Art is "art", not science or maths....ART! The artist has read a scripture (or considered a thought or situation) and used his or her imagination to create an image. You can like it or dislike it...or possibly decide it doesn't properly represent what it is supposedly being illustrated, but from there to an implied claim of true or false is entirely outside of the scope of artistic expression.

Yes, just as I stated, JW's artistic interpretations carry no more weight than mine. Thanks for agreeing with this fact.


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Art is "art", not science or maths....ART! The artist has read a scripture (or considered a thought or situation) and used his or her imagination to create an image. You can like it or dislike it...or possibly decide it doesn't properly represent what it is supposedly being illustrated, but from there to an implied claim of true or false is entirely outside of the scope of artistic expression.

Thanks for agreeing with this fact.


Tcg

You are most welcome. Have an excellent day,


Goodbye


JW

[Tcg]

Art is "art", not science or maths....ART! The artist has read a scripture (or considered a thought or situation) and used his or her imagination to create an image. You can like it or dislike it...or possibly decide it doesn't properly represent what it is supposedly being illustrated, but from there to an implied claim of true or false is entirely outside of the scope of artistic expression.

Thanks for agreeing with this fact.


Tcg

You are most welcome. Have an excellent day,

Oddly you chopped off my complete quote. Here it is:

"Yes, just as I stated, JW's artistic interpretations carry no more weight than mine. Thanks for agreeing with this fact."

In any case, I'm glad you've agreed with all I've stated.


Tcg

[The Tanager]

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?

The case for the Bible presenting God as being gendered here rests on "a masculine pronoun is used." Others and myself have addressed why we find that case to be lacking.

As far as resisting raising up these images, "these images" refers to the feminine imagery in Biblical verses that I brought up in post 7. I'll share further thoughts on those verses, as I understand things:

1. Gen 1:27 - where God makes male and female 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.

I don't think the image of God is about spiritual breath or the physical form. It's about humans being called to rule and take care of the world, something that God was painted as doing at Creation. God shares that with us, God's images, which are both male and female in gender. God is genderless.


2. Hosea 13:8 - where God is compared to a bear [feminine form] deprived 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.

Whatever comes next, God is compared to something feminine here. Why does it matter if it's a human or not? We've been talking about masculine vs. feminine.


3. Deut 32:18 - the Hebrew terms (Rock, God) are masculine, but Christians have translated it as God giving birth, which our modern culture identifies with the feminine. One doesn't need to see God as Mother Earth to use feminine imagery.


4. Isaiah 42:14 - God says that God held God's peace (common, i.e., can refer to either masculine or feminine), been still (common), restrained God's self (common), and like a woman in labor (feminine) will cry (common), pant (common), and gasp (common)

Isaiah 42 is speaking about the Messiah bringing forth justice, freedom, and life. We are then told to sing a song of praise to God because God goes out mightily against His foes, the evil being done. The point being made is that like women in labor exert great effort to bring something beautiful into the world, so does God. Whether you think this "God" does or not is important in its own right but irrelevant to this discussion.


5. Isaiah 49:15 - God compares God's self ("I," common) to a nursing mother (feminine) having compassion on her children

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!

Or the first question is rhetorical. Most people would be shocked at mothers being uncompassionate because they are so compassionate and, generally speaking, much better at that than human fathers. Then the point is made that even if that actually happened, against one's expectations, God would not.


6. Isaiah 66:13 - God compares God's self ("I," common) to a comforting mother (feminine)

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...

Earlier, yes, Jerusalem (Zion) is compared to a mother bringing forth a nation. In verse 9, God is said to have brought Zion to the point of birth and caused her to bring forth. In verses 10-11 one is told to rejoice with Jerusalem and nurse from her delight and abundance. Then in verse 12 God says God will extend Jerusalem's peace and life-giving nature. Then in verse 13, God says:

"As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem." That's clearly comparing God's self to the mother.


7. Psalm 123:2-3, where like servants (male) look to their masters (male) and maidservants (female) look to their mistress (feminine), we (common) look to our God (common) YHWH (masculine). A masculine name of God compared to both a master and a mistress.

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

Isn't that the point we've been discussing? The believer is using feminine imagery in how they look upon God.


8. Psalm 131:2, David is talking about hoping in the Lord (masculine)/quieting his (common) soul (feminine) like a weaned child (masculine) with his mother (feminine)

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]

You are right, I should be quoting it instead of inspecting people to look them up:

"O Lord, my heart is not lifted up;
my eyes are not raised too high;
I do not occupy myself with things
too great and too marvelous for me.
But I have calmed and quieted my soul,
like a weaned child with its mother;
like a weaned child is my soul within me.

O Israel, hope in the Lord
from this time forth and forevermore."

This psalm is called a "song of ascents," which Jews sang on their way to Jerusalem for festivals where they would worship God. David is saying that he's not concerned about all the fortunes and high, kingly things that he could be thinking of, but that he's quieting his soul from that and focusing on God, hoping in God rather than anything else, like a weaned child does with their mother.


9. Matthew 23:37 - Jesus talks about wishing to gather the inhabitants of Jerusalem like a hen (feminine) gathers her (feminine) chicks (neutral) under the wings (feminine)

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 I understand you correctly, then this is pure speculation. There is nothing in the earliest writings that show Jesus being sad about people imaging God in masculine ways, he's painted as being fine using masculine pronouns about God, tells His disciples to call God "Father" and so forth. But even if your speculation were true, it is irrelevant to my claim that the Bible does use feminine imagery of God.

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.

There is always the chance of deficit in imaging God, whatever image is used because humans desire power over one another, they love to have an "us vs. them" mentality.

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...

My claim has been that God is not depicted as male in gender and that there is feminine imagery applied to God in the Bible. Pronouns and images that are masculine is not the same as being a biological male.

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.