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'?

[Purple Knight]

It is more likely that YHWH does not care how She is imaged by humans but there are still consequences involved with creating types of imagery, as can be observed by the history of both OT and NT religions - specifically in their treatment of women in regards to how male dominated religions [as ambassadors of their image of YHWH] contribute to this problem.

You may be putting the chicken before the egg here. I think it's more likely that a male-dominated culture would create a male god or need to see god as male, than that god is the one who made them primitive in this way. And I'm sorry I use the word primitive but I just don't see any other way to describe the way they treat women.

I also don't rule out that god tacitly participates in and approves of it because he Chose a People who were nastier to women than some other alternatives of the time.

What confusion do you think YHWH is trying to avoid?

Well, what do you think happens if he shows up as anything but a human male? If he shows up as a snake or a woman, they might assume he's the devil, or Lilith. If he shows up as a woman, they might not assume he's the Lord. Lords are male. Women generally don't rule over men. For this to suddenly change would probably confuse the humans. I'm not going to say they would have failed to identify god as god, but I don't think he's in the business of making that harder.

The 'correcting' has to do with coming to realization that YHWH operates in that way and it is not how humans image Her, but to what degree such imaging distorts the nature of YHWH in relationship with the human individual.
A male dominated image allows for males to persecute females in the name of YHWH, and "ten thousand years or so go by and you don't correct anybody" doesn't mean that YHWH hasn't attempted correction and thus condones murder in Her name. See Jesus calling out the religious of the OT [John 8:44]

The image we place on The Creator has consequence and if the consequence shows the path taken by those who follow the image is detrimental, then those who see that, chose another image and associate path.

As an example, there is no reason why YHWH cannot be imaged as the planet Earth - but as can be seen in post #70 and the reply from The Tanager [a Christian] answers my question as to which of the two images best shows a real image of YHWH, with;

"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."

So clearly Christians [in general] can only tolerate the masculine image of YHWH, one who uses the Planet Earth as [His] footstool. One who is a male human figure enthroned in some alternate reality...

Consequences of doing so can be seen in the world today.

Some Christians here have said they don't care if it's male or not, and I don't take mere preference for one image over another as an inability to tolerate any other image, and I certainly don't take it as a literal belief that God has a dingleberry. If anyone thinks this I'll be sorely disappointed in the entire human species.

It needed some image to interact with people and it's at least possible it chose the one that would lead to the least detriment. It's possible that if it appeared as a woman, it would have led to the same thing against men, but worse. It's possible that oppression of women was the least of all ills. I don't say likely, but I do say possible.

[William]

(To the best of my knowlege the expression "False Images of The Creator" is nowhere to be found in scripture)

JW

If this is the case, would you agree that there is no such thing as a false image of The Creator?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #132]

It needed some image to interact with people and it's at least possible it chose the one that would lead to the least detriment. It's possible that if it appeared as a woman, it would have led to the same thing against men, but worse. It's possible that oppression of women was the least of all ills. I don't say likely, but I do say possible.

6 Matriarchal Societies That Have Been Thriving With Women at the Helm for Centuries

[JehovahsWitness]

(To the best of my knowlege the expression "False Images of The Creator" is nowhere to be found in scripture)

JW

If this is the case, would you agree that there is no such thing as a false image of The Creator?

That would depend on if the claim was made that the image was literally what God looked like (I have yet to hear any artist make this claim). Even then, since I do not know what God looks like I couldn't in all honesty proclaim it false. The most I could do is say, if the artist was to claim this is literally what God look like, is that does not reflect what we know from scripture about the nature of God.

I have never met anyone with an iota of common sense that claims a picture of God is anything but an artistic representation of the metaphor in religious theology .

Take for example your entirely erroneous assumption (presumably because you simply copy pasted from the internet without doing any research) that the JW illustration was of YHWH (Jehovah ) when it was in fact an illustration of bible scriptures of the resurrected Jesus. *I* ... would have done some research, read the scriptures being illustrated and concluded that the artist has illustrated passages in the bible that refer to the resurrected Jesus as a king having dominion over the entire planet earth. I know from Jehovah's Witness literature that they do not believe the resurrected'Jesus is a literal male human but that these are metaphors in scripture to help people understand Jesus position and role in heaven.

It is generally understood by the educated that religious art is not to be taken literally or viewed as a scientific thesis. In short, a painting clearly depicting God as an old man doesn't mean to say God is literally an old man: that is an infantile appoach to art best left to young children and village idiots

But as I said *I* use common sense, research , my knowledge of what a a metaphor is and a basic understanding of the nature of artistic expression to modify my rhetoric. I try and avoid sweeping statements that display an ignorance that I imagine would have had Michelangelo himself giggling and sighing in equal measure.


JW,

[brunumb]

I try and avoid sweeping statements that display an ignorance that I imagine would have had Michael Angelo himself giggling and sighing in equal measure.

Michelangelo's depiction of the creation of Adam. There's Yahweh/Jehovah clearly depicted as old man. It seems to have been the prevailing concept of God. Nothing spiritual or feminine about the image at all.

(I'm sure Michael Angelo, whoever that is, would be giggling too)

[JehovahsWitness]

(I'm sure Michael Angelo, whoever that is ...)

Michelangelo... thanks for picking that up. Duly corrected.

JW

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #136]

Michelangelo's depiction of the creation of Adam. There's Yahweh/Jehovah clearly depicted as old man. It seems to have been the prevailing concept of God. Nothing spiritual or feminine about the image at all.

I suppose that prevailing concepts of YHWH come and go as they do...because as can be seen - no image, written or painted captures the true - so in that, all must be false.

[William]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #135]

I know from Jehovah's Witness literature that they do not believe the resurrected' Jesus is a literal male human but that these are metaphors in scripture to help people understand Jesus position and role in heaven.

So Jesus might be depicted this way because the expectancy of those who see things in such light, is that She would be male...the metaphorical image best used to convey a supreme position.

Perhaps YHWH might be the human figure oft presented [By JWs] as seated on a throne not having any face and having loose robes so it is impossible to determine whether She is a Father or He is a Mother...

[The Tanager]

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.

But it does not really. What it paints a picture of is a Creator who is able to take on any form. and is not Itself, any of those forms.

I did not understand you correctly. I was thinking of a distinction between having a form and temporarily taking on a form.

In that particular case YHWH presents as a voice, much as YHWH did when YHWH was with Adam in the Garden of Eden. In the form of a voice. An audible voice from an invisible [formless] source.
How would one paint that scene so that the image is understood by the observer?

I think different people could paint it in different ways and all be 'correct' in doing so. I think images can only show an aspect of God and do not, in doing so, necessarily attach to everything one could mean (or another might interpret) by that image.

Precisely! You were shown a sphere which represented The Creator Mind in the image of a form. It is unavoidable that when interacting on the subject of The Creator, Images have to be used as a means of communicating such concepts.
Which is also why I asked you about your preference in relation to another Sphere [Planet Earth/The Rock] and a typical Christian image of The Creator being a male in a dominant position over the Earth. Your preference - what you considered the real of the two images, was The Creator being a male in a dominant position over the Earth.

That's the interpretation you put on that other image, not the one I did. To me that image showed a loving God ruling over God's creation in goodness. That I chose that one had nothing to do with it being a male; it had to do with which picture was more personal. As I said, if a Queen was pictured, then I would have still chosen it over the picture you believe is a better representation of reality. But I would choose many, many images over both of those.

Do you have any supporting estimates as to the difference between the "tons of Christians" and the "many Christians" or is this just something you believe?

No, I do not. Nor do I see any merit in trying to figure that out, although there may be some. I will say that I don't come across actual Christians that openly use it in those negative ways, but obviously many Christians do. And I'm a part of a good-sized church and other Christian organizations. I encounter them only in readings. I do come across Christians that are very hesitant to use anything that speaks of feminine imagery, largely due to the conversation around Christianity because of feminist movements. Many Christians feel that orthodoxy is being attacked whenever any feminine imagery is mentioned and (in my view) they bunker down in the opposite extreme. But whenever I ask those Christians if they think God is male, they say no. They will say masculine pronouns and imagery are used to speak of God's role with us, just like they see the role of husbands in marriage. I think those issues are more complex than those Christians believe. Like most things in life, I think the middle way is often the best, avoiding the extremes that cultures often seem to run to.

Do you think that it would be better that the "tons of Christians" drop their notions re this imagery and join the "many Christians"?

I do. We do this with most of our beliefs, or we wouldn't hold the ones we do.

Do you think that the "tons of Christians" are worshipping a false image of The Creator in relation to the "many Christians" who are not?

I think all of our imaging of God constantly needs correction. We try to put God in boxes, something we can control. It's safer. It's more comfortable to us.

I think that argument is fabrication. "He" or 'She" works the same way as to emphasis on GENDER. "Sex" is not what we are really talking about. It is not whether YHWH has a penis OR a vagina. It is about how imaging Her as a male has had its consequences against female human beings. Do I have to [yet again] post that picture of the woman being burned alive at the actions of Christians who proclaimed her a "witch"?

As to the confusion this might cause, examine how my use of the word "Her" when speaking of YHWH affects your understanding. Are you 'confused' by my using the feminine? Does it somehow work disfavorably for you to hear such? Is there a part of your psyche which resents or otherwise feels discomfort in that?

Christians have burned more than witches. I agree with you that the consequences of the Christian mis-use of images needs to be addressed. I don't think that is accomplished best by changing the pronouns officially. That change would be interpreted various ways by various people. That's why I said these conversations need to be had, rather than just term changes.

Do you really think that The Creator cares whether we call Her an "It" if that would mean She is better presented in the eyes of human understanding?

I don't think that is better presenting God in the eyes of human understanding, because to me it de-personalizes a very personal being.

[William]

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.

But it does not really. What it paints a picture of is a Creator who is able to take on any form. and is not Itself, any of those forms.

I did not understand you correctly. I was thinking of a distinction between having a form and temporarily taking on a form.

Or even semi-permanently taking on a form...Point being, form is not representative of any true image YHWH takes on. It is representative of beliefs humans shape in relation to dominant images of YHWH in form.

In that particular case YHWH presents as a voice, much as YHWH did when YHWH was with Adam in the Garden of Eden. In the form of a voice. An audible voice from an invisible [formless] source.
How would one paint that scene so that the image is understood by the observer?

I think different people could paint it in different ways and all be 'correct' in doing so.

Exactly what do you mean by "correct"? In my mind this appears to show evidence that my understanding that individuals will experience what they believe because they will create their next experience [afterlife] based - in part - on the imagery of their beliefs.

I think images can only show an aspect of God and do not, in doing so, necessarily attach to everything one could mean (or another might interpret) by that image.

Do you think this of all images attached to YHWH?

Precisely! You were shown a sphere which represented The Creator Mind in the image of a form. It is unavoidable that when interacting on the subject of The Creator, Images have to be used as a means of communicating such concepts.
Which is also why I asked you about your preference in relation to another Sphere [Planet Earth/The Rock] and a typical Christian image of The Creator being a male in a dominant position over the Earth. Your preference - what you considered the real of the two images, was The Creator being a male in a dominant position over the Earth.

That's the interpretation you put on that other image, not the one I did.

AS far as I remember, you did not explain what meaning you put on either image, except to imply one was real while the other you did not consider real.

To me that image showed a loving God ruling over God's creation in goodness.

Would it be fair observation that your interpretation of that image was conditioned due to similar images you have seen accompanying the idea of "a loving ruler-god"?

That I chose that one had nothing to do with it being a male; it had to do with which picture was more personal. As I said, if a Queen was pictured, then I would have still chosen it over the picture you believe is a better representation of reality.

So then, can you tell us which of the 2 images below you might immediately prefer over the other.

But I would choose many, many images over both of those.

Will you give us some examples of the images of YHWH you would prefer?

Do you have any supporting estimates as to the difference between the "tons of Christians" and the "many Christians" or is this just something you believe?

No, I do not. Nor do I see any merit in trying to figure that out, although there may be some. I will say that I don't come across actual Christians that openly use it in those negative ways, but obviously many Christians do.

Obviously. Even Christians who debate on this board...

And I'm a part of a good-sized church and other Christian organizations.

What is the name this "good-sized church" and the names of these "other Christian organizations" you are part of? Perhaps by studying their imagery we might better be able to understand your argument.

I encounter them only in readings. I do come across Christians that are very hesitant to use anything that speaks of feminine imagery, largely due to the conversation around Christianity because of feminist movements.

What is a 'feminist movement" and why are these movements the source of this Christian hesitancy?

Many Christians feel that orthodoxy is being attacked whenever any feminine imagery is mentioned and (in my view) they bunker down in the opposite extreme.

Is this orthodoxy then, closely related to masculine imagery of The Creator which these Christians feel is threatened by "Feminist Movements"?

But whenever I ask those Christians if they think God is male, they say no. They will say masculine pronouns and imagery are used to speak of God's role with us, just like they see the role of husbands in marriage. I think those issues are more complex than those Christians believe. Like most things in life, I think the middle way is often the best, avoiding the extremes that cultures often seem to run to.

How do you express this thinking to those Christians? Are you as forthcoming with them as you are being with us now, here in your writing?

Do you think that it would be better that the "tons of Christians" drop their notions re this imagery and join the "many Christians"?

I do. We do this with most of our beliefs, or we wouldn't hold the ones we do.

How do you propose that this could be achieved? For example, in this thread a number of Christians have been shown to favor the masculine images of YHWH...how would you argue the case in order to try and assist them in changing their mind-set?

Do you think that the "tons of Christians" are worshipping a false image of The Creator in relation to the "many Christians" who are not?

I think all of our imaging of God constantly needs correction.

Is this because it is constantly incorrect?

We try to put God in boxes, something we can control. It's safer. It's more comfortable to us.

I think that is a fair assessment. Some argue that even insisting that the bible is "The Word of God" is one such way of trying to put The Creator in a "box". Would you agree with that?

I think that argument is fabrication. "He" or 'She" works the same way as to emphasis on GENDER. "Sex" is not what we are really talking about. It is not whether YHWH has a penis OR a vagina. It is about how imaging Her as a male has had its consequences against female human beings. Do I have to [yet again] post that picture of the woman being burned alive at the actions of Christians who proclaimed her a "witch"?

As to the confusion this might cause, examine how my use of the word "Her" when speaking of YHWH affects your understanding. Are you 'confused' by my using the feminine? Does it somehow work disfavorably for you to hear such? Is there a part of your psyche which resents or otherwise feels discomfort in that?

Christians have burned more than witches.

Sure. There is some rumor that they have even burned libraries...certainly they have burned books and records. But these are not comparable to burning Human Women.

I agree with you that the consequences of the Christian mis-use of images needs to be addressed.

Good.

I don't think that is accomplished best by changing the pronouns officially. That change would be interpreted various ways by various people. That's why I said these conversations need to be had, rather than just term changes.

I have not and will not argue for any official change. My argument is specific to individual beliefs which the individual can change of their own will. If that means rejecting current official images, so be it. We are looking for changes which give more positive consequence, so waiting on officials is only consistently shown to be a pointless proces to that end.
We can be sure that there has always been some official decree in a woman being pronounced a "witch" and sentenced to death by fire.

Examine how my use of the word "Her" when speaking of YHWH affects your understanding. Are you 'confused' by my using the feminine? Does it somehow work disfavorably for you to hear such? Is there a part of your psyche which resents or otherwise feels discomfort in that?

Do you really think that The Creator cares whether we call Her an "It" if that would mean She is better presented in the eyes of human understanding?

I don't think that is better presenting God in the eyes of human understanding, because to me it de-personalizes a very personal being.

Are you able to examine WHY it has this affect on you?

Surely if "It" is able to commune with you, that is personal enough for you to not have to concern yourself. Out of interest, how would you refer to The Holy Ghost, since Spirits are neither 'male' or 'female'? Would "It" 'depersonalize' The Holy Spirit?

In that, I would like to revisit your apparent dislike for the idea that YHWH can take on the form of a planet...because the image below;...



...goes a long way in removing the incorrect imagery of YHWH as - while it is taken from the moon - it is known to be a thriving intelligent community of life-forms on the face of something which is only regarded as 'a rock'...yet there is no reason why anyone cannot understand that YHWH can indeed inhabit the form of a planet [Earth as the leading example] and create from the inside out, as part of that process.

At least the image is far more real than those the religions of YHWH have come up with to "put YHWH within", surely you could agree.

After all, who can doubt that the Earth is a living entity capable of creating a myriad of different form in which to display life?

Thus, one should be able to understand why I question your choices in relation to what you will accept as legitimate imagery of YHWH.

Because - let us face the facts - those other images you gave regarding the Feminine aspects of imagery pertaining to YHWH - the mother bear, the nursing human mother, the mother hen - these are simple examples of life-forms on the Earth - so surely the greater - more appropriate image of YHWH could [and even should in preference] be the whole planet Herself?

And check this image out...