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]

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.

I was wrong, my apologies, I do have an issue with something you said: namely how one can go about proving an an image/illustration (an artists interpretation of what he sees or imagines) "false" or "true"? Unless I am mistakes, you can't. So your point about Jehovah's Witness illustrations(even if it were of YHWH/Jehovah's, which it is not) is merely opinion.

Duly noted; Duly dismissed.

Please have an enjoyable weekend,


JW

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

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

[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.”

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

So it would seem that the better way to go is to decrease the focus by not using gender at all...masculine or feminine. Because the Catholic way clearly puts the focus ONLY on the masculine. Claiming that this is done in order to 'decrease' focus of gender [sex] while choosing to use only the masculine [he is god] is a very weak argument.

[Purple Knight]

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.

Correct. I don't think of Star Trek's Q as being "disguised" or misrepresenting himself either. What if we can't even see or hear the thing that these beings really are? What do you want them to do? Talk at us and then get upset because we don't respond because that's somehow more truthful and honest than deceptively passing themselves off as male humans?

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...

Exactly. So what this is not:

1. This is not an instance of God being deceptive.
2. This is not an instance of the humans misrepresenting God.

...Even though God probably doesn't have a gender. The representation of God does have a gender and it's male and that's fine. This representation may be his celestial see-n-say that he pumps commands into so it can respond to the human with, "the human goes quack-quack-quack," but how can I fault him for this if his real face would knock our living daylights out, and then how can I fault the humans for seeing a male human if that's what they were shown?

The answer is I can't fault anybody.

And nobody's being misgendered. Imagine if Q did this:

Troi: What gender would you like to be addressed as and what is your preferred personal pronoun?
Q: You couldn't possibly understand and you couldn't pronounce it. You can't understand what I am. You're misgendering me just by looking at me, you small little being, you.
Troi: ...

Doing this would be silly. And mean. Even if it is strictly speaking, the truth. You want to interact with the tiny ones? You don't do that. You accept that they are lesser and can't understand things. You don't chastise them for not being better than they can possibly be within their physical limitations.

[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.

I was wrong, my apologies, I do have an issue with something you said: namely how one can go about proving an an image/illustration (an artists interpretation of what he sees or imagines) "false" or "true"? Unless I am mistakes, you can't. So your point about Jehovah's Witness illustrations(even if it were of YHWH/Jehovah's, which it is not) is merely opinion.

Duly noted; Duly dismissed.

Please have an enjoyable weekend,


JW

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

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

First we have to agree that the idea of "False Images of The Creator" can be referenced in the bible. Is there any such reference ...

[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.

So it would seem that the better way to go is to decrease the focus by not using gender at all...masculine or feminine. Because the Catholic way clearly puts the focus ONLY on the masculine. Claiming that this is done in order to 'decrease' focus of gender [sex] while choosing to use only the masculine [he is god] is a very weak argument.

There are Christians who do not use any pronouns when talking about God. Personally, I feel that it comes across as pedantic and a little priggish, but it one way to go.

Saying that an argument is weak doesn’t actually make it so, especially since you have yet to respond to that actual argument.

[William]

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.

Correct. I don't think of Star Trek's Q as being "disguised" or misrepresenting himself either. What if we can't even see or hear the thing that these beings really are? What do you want them to do? Talk at us and then get upset because we don't respond because that's somehow more truthful and honest than deceptively passing themselves off as male humans?

Well we cannot assume from the stories that they were in human forms - but rather forms which made them distinct from being humans - so humaniod forms perhaps....have the familiarity or similarity of 'human' in form...

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...

Exactly. So what this is not:

1. This is not an instance of God being deceptive.
2. This is not an instance of the humans misrepresenting God.

...Even though God probably doesn't have a gender. The representation of God does have a gender and it's male and that's fine. This representation may be his celestial see-n-say that he pumps commands into so it can respond to the human with, "the human goes quack-quack-quack," but how can I fault him for this if his real face would knock our living daylights out, and then how can I fault the humans for seeing a male human if that's what they were shown?

The answer is I can't fault anybody.

Remembering of course that I am speaking of human expectations...so YHWH is using human expectations [God has to be a male] not because YHWH is a male [or a human] but because it serves YHWHs purpose to present [his] self in the image of a human male...because [he] wouldn't get to base #2 [setting up communication] if he didn't 'bow' to human expectation...

The obvious problem this causes is when humans realize this is the case but still refuse to budge from that image of YHWH as a human male...they are in a position to being misguided...

And nobody's being misgendered. Imagine if Q did this:

Troi: What gender would you like to be addressed as and what is your preferred personal pronoun?
Q: You couldn't possibly understand and you couldn't pronounce it. You can't understand what I am. You're misgendering me just by looking at me, you small little being, you.
Troi: ...

Doing this would be silly. And mean. Even if it is strictly speaking, the truth. You want to interact with the tiny ones? You don't do that. You accept that they are lesser and can't understand things. You don't chastise them for not being better than they can possibly be within their physical limitations.

Yes but you are arguing from the premise that YHWH actually is the one who wants to be seen as a human male - rather than from the premise that YHWH goes along with human expectation - what they expect to see or what they will only respond to seeing, as a 'real' image of YHWH rather than a False one.

Going along with the expectation is not the same as agreeing with it as actually True.

[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.”

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

So it would seem that the better way to go is to decrease the focus by not using gender at all...masculine or feminine. Because the Catholic way clearly puts the focus ONLY on the masculine. Claiming that this is done in order to 'decrease' focus of gender [sex] while choosing to use only the masculine [he is god] is a very weak argument.

There are Christians who do not use any pronouns when talking about God. Personally, I feel that it comes across as pedantic and a little priggish, but it one way to go.

Saying that an argument is weak doesn’t actually make it so, especially since you have yet to respond to that actual argument.

I have indeed responded strongly to the weakness of your Catholic-based example....to the argument you are presenting.

Your claim that "There are Christians who do not use any pronouns when talking about God" is without support, much as The Tanagers argument that most Christians think of The Creator as a genderless immaterial spirit was also presented without support.

As I pointed out - even using the word "God" automatically genderfies The Creator as a male being - a personification of masculinity. The feminine equivalent is "Goddess" - so when Christianity decided to use the word "God" as a name for The Creator, they must have done so for that reason - to establish the image in the Christian Collective Psyche that The Creator is male and to stamp out all reference to The Creator in the feminine - Christians to this day consider reference to "Goddess" as paganism. It is why "witches" were burned to death by Christians....part of the 'cleansing' Christians believed that Jesus had ordered them to do...

[bjs1]

I have indeed responded strongly to the weakness of your Catholic-based example....to the argument you are presenting.

You have not. Saying it again does not make it true. I would in fact appreciate if you would finally address the argument (again, see post 24).

Your claim that "There are Christians who do not use any pronouns when talking about God" is without support, much as The Tanagers argument that most Christians think of The Creator as a genderless immaterial spirit was also presented without support.

Do we really need to support these claims more? I know who Christians who don’t use pronouns for God. It’s not common, probably for the reasons I mentioned before, but it does happen.

If you are going to tell Christians that they don’t know what it is that most Christians believe, then you are going to have to provide some serious evidence to back up your case. Two Christians have told you that most Christians think of God as not having a gender. If you have evidence that our belief is uncommon, present it. Without that, you trying to tell Christians what it is we really think is blatantly ridiculous.

As I pointed out - even using the word "God" automatically genderfies The Creator as a male being - a personification of masculinity. The feminine equivalent is "Goddess" - so when Christianity decided to use the word "God" as a name for The Creator, they must have done so for that reason - to establish the image in the Christian Collective Psyche that The Creator is male and to stamp out all reference to The Creator in the feminine - Christians to this day consider reference to "Goddess" as paganism. It is why "witches" were burned to death by Christians....part of the 'cleansing' Christians believed that Jesus had ordered them to do...

It is extremely unlikely that this was the reasoning Christians used. It is far more likely that they adopted the language of the OT. They were making a statement about their connection to the eternal God who had already revealed Himself to people, not about God’s sex.

[William]

I have indeed responded strongly to the weakness of your Catholic-based example....to the argument you are presenting.

You have not. Saying it again does not make it true. I would in fact appreciate if you would finally address the argument (again, see post 24).

I addressed the post. You have given no support to the notion that using a masculine is 'closer to genderless' than using a feminine.

Your claim that "There are Christians who do not use any pronouns when talking about God" is without support, much as The Tanagers argument that most Christians think of The Creator as a genderless immaterial spirit was also presented without support.

Do we really need to support these claims more?

Yes. Since Christianity is known for it images of The Creator in the masculine such as "God" [not Goddess] "He" [not She] and nowhere is general circulation of Christian art, is The Creator portrayed as a Female.

I know who Christians who don’t use pronouns for God. It’s not common, probably for the reasons I mentioned before, but it does happen.

Thus one can satisfactorily conclude that while there may be some Christians who don't subscribe to said images [pictures and language] the majority do actually subscribe to said imagery.

If you are going to tell Christians that they don’t know what it is that most Christians believe, then you are going to have to provide some serious evidence to back up your case. Two Christians have told you that most Christians think of God as not having a gender. If you have evidence that our belief is uncommon, present it. Without that, you trying to tell Christians what it is we really think is blatantly ridiculous.

I am simply providing supporting evidence that the majority of Christians DO NOT see The Creator in the way that you claim they do. That you and some other Christians might not believe those images are true, most Christians definitely do, and present these images to the world as true.
Thus, you are incorrect to say that this issue is petty and that my observations [supported] are "blatantly ridiculous"

As I pointed out - even using the word "God" automatically genderfies The Creator as a male being - a personification of masculinity. The feminine equivalent is "Goddess" - so when Christianity decided to use the word "God" as a name for The Creator, they must have done so for that reason - to establish the image in the Christian Collective Psyche that The Creator is male and to stamp out all reference to The Creator in the feminine - Christians to this day consider reference to "Goddess" as paganism. It is why "witches" were burned to death by Christians....part of the 'cleansing' Christians believed that Jesus had ordered them to do...

It is extremely unlikely that this was the reasoning Christians used.

Do you have any support to back that statement up. I myself have argued sensibly [with supporting evidence] that this is the most likely reason why images of The Creator have been presented in the masculine, by Christianity over the entire length of its existence as a religion.

It is far more likely that they adopted the language of the OT.

I have not argued otherwise. We cannot forget how those who saw The Creator in the feminine were also persecuted by the religion of the OT. [Jesus referred to these as "murderers".] - I already used this as supporting evidence in earlier posts in this thread. I am not surprised Christians here have chosen to skip over that evidence in their rush to label my argument as "petty", "ridiculous", "rhetoric" etc...

They were making a statement about their connection to the eternal God who had already revealed Himself to people, not about God’s sex.

Yet therein their statement is that The Creator is "God" [masculine] and "Himself" [as you use the term] and "Male" as in their imagery.

Please address my actual arguments...

[The Tanager]

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.

If I understand you correctly, where form is a physical form, then yes, I believe the Bible paints a picture of a God with no form.

I don't think it is always (or perhaps even usually) in ways that meet human expectations (I'm broadening that statement beyond the situations that would only be either male or female). For instance, 1 Kings 19:9-13 where God comes to speak to Elijah, the expectation being God coming in strength but coming in the sound of a low whisper:

"There he came to a cave and lodged in it. And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, and he said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?” 10 He said, “I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away.” 11 And he said, “Go out and stand on the mount before the Lord.” And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind tore the mountains and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. And after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 12 And after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire the sound of a low whisper.["or a sound, a thin silence"] 13 And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

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.

I'm not sure humans can escape doing so. We think in images, whether drawn out or left verbal. You have given GOD form in your imagery, haven't you? Recently, you spoke to me of a Sphere. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by 'form,' though. If so, then I welcome clarification.

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.

I agree with you that tons of Christians have settled upon masculine imagery out of male dominance, oppression of other viewpoints, etc. My point has simply been that many Christians don't and that I don't think the Bible positively does either.

As to why I would avoid officially adding "She," to try to correct any of those wrongs, I'm with bjs1, where that puts too much emphasis on sex, where God isn't gendered. To use a neutral term, to try to correct any of those wrongs, I think would wrongly de-personalize God. I'd rather individuals talk the issues out.