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'?

[brunumb]

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

Seems to me that scripture must be telling the artist that God is a bearded old guy sitting on a gilded chair somewhere up in the sky. Sure doesn't look like a woman or an ungendered spirit to me.

[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

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.

It must be noted again for some in this thread, I never said I couldn't be wrong on my understanding of what Jesus is said to have said (maybe this arguing to prove something that doesn't yet matter is why there are so many edits of are arguments about the bible?).
I simply said if Jesus used a masculine term, there must be a reason for it. If God was feminine, it would stand to reason (I know I know it's the bible reason need not apply but come on!) God has feminine qualities.
I didn't say what masculine meant because I didn't use the term myself - Jesus did. Nor does it matter if one can lay out examples of masculinity at this point.
If Jesus used a masculine term to describe God, then god must be masculine by whatever definition of the time. If we want to compare masculinity then and now, that's fine. But we're not at this point yet.
It's really not as difficult as some of you are making it out to be
But whatever it takes to save face for your beliefs I guess

[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.

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

Tcg

Ditto. It is good to find common ground.


Please have a most wonderful weekend,

JW

[Purple Knight]

Well then the poster in question should probably not have attempted to use the term (masculine qualities) in a debate.

It depends on whether the term is precise enough to prove what he's trying to prove, which it well might be. If he was simply trying to prove that Jesus saw God as masculine or wanted others to see God as masculine, he might be right. But again, this was never about him picking this term. This was about Jesus using the word pater and whether it ascribes masculine qualities or not.

I think you know me well enough to know that you cannot and will never be able to subtly shift the term I asked about (masculine qualities) to another word that I did not ask about (pater).

I'm not shifting anything. The post you decided to question was about the word pater and what it ascribes and what it doesn't.

This was in the context of God having a gender.

Remember, my position on this is that despite it being ludicrously unlikely that God has... that part... (or anything else that would indicate what we think of as maleness, such as a Y chromosome) it's also not wrong to say God is male insofar as the Bible or any character therein does, because God is not trying to scare or confuse anyone, and he was trying to impart that he was their Lord, and he was doing it in a patriarchal culture.

He appears with the trappings of the culture. He's going to be described in that context and there's nothing wrong with that.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #101]

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.

Clearly the question is "Why does God have a gender" and in that your argument that God 'does not have a gender' but is likened to 'male' and 'female' [although mostly male] in the bible writ - so as to somehow show that Christians do not really view God in form.

It gets to that, wouldn't you agree? God has no form really, and is just given form in relation to human expectations.

The better question to ask is "Why do humans insist upon giving The Creator form, in their imagery?" because that is the gist of the thread question....and more to the point, "why is the imagery mostly masculine" [even with Christians naming The Creator "God" which is the masculine version of Goddess.

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #103]

It must be noted again for some in this thread, I never said I couldn't be wrong on my understanding of what Jesus is said to have said (maybe this arguing to prove something that doesn't yet matter is why there are so many edits of are arguments about the bible?).
I simply said if Jesus used a masculine term, there must be a reason for it. If God was feminine, it would stand to reason (I know I know it's the bible reason need not apply but come on!) God has feminine qualities.
I didn't say what masculine meant because I didn't use the term myself - Jesus did. Nor does it matter if one can lay out examples of masculinity at this point.
If Jesus used a masculine term to describe God, then god must be masculine by whatever definition of the time. If we want to compare masculinity then and now, that's fine. But we're not at this point yet.
It's really not as difficult as some of you are making it out to be
But whatever it takes to save face for your beliefs I guess

The overall point is that the OPQuestion left a gap for an opportunity and the opportunity was taken. Yes indeed, when anyone uses the word God [to denote The Creator] one is immediately using the masculine.
Jesus in the Bible uses the title "Father" [My, our, your, the] and we also know from OT references of YHWH visitations, that he is seen in the form of a male being/entity so this leaves no doubt whatsoever that the answer to the OPQ must be "Because YHWH is a male, does have form..."

One could argue that Jesus - in referring to The Creator - used the term "Father" because to use any other term [which wasn't masculine] would have meant that he wouldn't have gained any popularity/sympathy with the general public - and might have even been stoned to death by said general public - saving the religious authorities the bother of having to set him up...effectively changing the outcome of the story...

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #92]

Well then I have no issue with your post. {snip}

Okay.

My Post referred to:
The context of this thread clearly shows Christians are presenting a false image of The Creator in their artwork and religions which create and promote these false images are being untruthful.

Just as it is seen that those who deny that the bible has a clearly masculine image of The Creator and even refers to The Creator as "God " [also masculine as "Goddess" is the feminine] and they expect to see The Creator as a male being enthroned in whatever versions of the afterlife they each believe in ...to blatantly plead ignorance as to what "masculine" means in the thread context is not a great retort in a debate setting. Just as surely as the worship of false images of The Creator are regarded as blasphemy, even according to the script.

False images such as the one exampled from the Jehovahs Witnesses catalog of art, used by me as evidence that indeed The Creator is presented in the masculine...and Christians are not so much denying this is the case as they are feigning ignorance as to what those critiquing the use of such imagery [written word and pictures] mean by "masculine" even remaining apparently ignorant after it has been clearly explained.
So either we are dealing with genuine ignorance or we are dealing with purposeful deception ... neither of which are acceptable strategies in a debate setting.

[William]

How do you propose to prove a image is "false"? {snip}

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

Since you wrote that you had no issue with my post, I will take you at your word.

[bjs1]

[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.”

It would not. That would put an increased focus on sex, which defeats the point. See post 24.

[William]

Remember, my position on this is that despite it being ludicrously unlikely that God has... that part... (or anything else that would indicate what we think of as maleness, such as a Y chromosome) it's also not wrong to say God is male insofar as the Bible or any character therein does, because God is not trying to scare or confuse anyone, and he was trying to impart that he was their Lord, and he was doing it in a patriarchal culture.

He appears with the trappings of the culture. He's going to be described in that context and there's nothing wrong with that.

So in this it appears you are saying that YHWH used whatever was available in order to make contact with the humans beings [he] made contact with, and resorting to human expectations is not wrong or misguided or untruthful.

We have a story whereby YHWH tells one such human that if that human were to see YHWH as YHWH actually was, then the human would apparently drop dead on the spot...

Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

so in that, YHWH "showing" [Itself] to human beings in [Its] true nature, runs contrary to YHWH wanting human beings to truly know YHWH as YHWH truly is...thus YHWH dresses up in something human expectations would feel more comfortable with "in the seeing of"....in the form of a masculine humanlike entity...