A female God

[Tis_Bearself]

The Baphomet image is a representation of God that matches your above description.

It may be a human-made representation of God matching my puny human words. The reality is that no human representation or words can get at what God actually is and we don’t have the understanding to adequately describe it, in words, in an image representation, or anything else.

 

[GEddie]

so, if Yahweh God chooses to Reveal Himself in a male persona, who are we to redefine His chosen gender just because we “feel” that we know better?

Then you didn’t get the memo??

FEELINGS are now the new truth!!!

ICXC NIKA

 

[oldgraymare2]

In Jewish (and Christian) theology, the Shekinah is the spirit of G-d, which, according to Kabbala, is regarded as feminine.

Since Judaism does not believe in Jesus as the Son of G-d, the former is not linked to the notion of a masculine Person of G-d. I realize that Christianity also considers G-d to be spirit, not flesh; but G-d Incarnate does assume a masculine form.

Of course, the notion of a gendered G-d is itself rather absurd within the Abrahamic religions. Still, if we do anthropomorphize G-d as a feminine being, that might tilt our conception of G-d further in the direction of a nurturing and merciful mother rather than a stern and just father, in keeping with our own gender stereotypes.

Hi meltzerboy,

I appreciate your explanations.

I find them to be really interesting.

The only place that I have heard of God being feminine is in any kind of New Age description, as in the “Goddess within” type of thinking.

Like some of the other members have said here, I have only heard of God referred to in Scripture in His male form, such as Father and Son.

I have never heard of any type of a female reference before, or of a female aspect to God.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I don’t understand why things like this are so important in the whole scheme of things or in the long run. If in faith we meet God face to face, then we will know. What difference will it make if God is male, female or genderless? Seems other things that Jesus spoke about, for instance the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick, about love, about the Golden Rule would be more important. When I recite the Lord’s Prayer I have prayed “Our Father” because that is how the writers in those times penned the words. It was a very patriarchal time. But I don’t know for certain whether God embodies a gender or is gender neutral. And I really spend little time thinking about it. There seems so much more the world needs than to worry about these types of things. We truly do walk only in our particular faiths. Not by sight.

 

[Nairovyg]

I feel like most of you guys are understanding it as God himself is a “female”.
Not sure if you did read the blog, but they are saying that there isn’t 1 God that its actually 2, and the bride of the lamb is that female god (One of the things they use to justify that there is a female god

 

[jcrichton]

Who truly knows til we are face to face? God could even transcend gender. Jesus called Peter (or his profession of faith) a rock (depending on whether one comes with a Catholic or Protestant perspective) but no one believes he was saying Peter was made of granite. In Luke 13 Jesus said he often wanted to gather as a hen. In Matt 13 Jesus says heaven was like yeast that a woman mixed with flour. And the men who wrote in those times of course were going to use the masculine references or they might have been ignored by that society. The times in which something is written can play a role.

Hi, Sy!

…yeah… not!

…you are confusing metaphorical statements with declarative statements… when asked to Teach/show them how to pray… did Jesus say: ‘…well, you can look at God in Heaven as if He were a hen gathering her chicks or as if He were a mama bear defending her cubs or as if He were a human father of a large family or…?’

Nope! Jesus actually stated:

8 Do not be like them; **your Father **

knows what you need before you ask him. 9 So you should pray like this: ‘Our Father in heaven, may your name be held holy, (St. Matthew 6:8-9)
…sadly, this temerity in confining God to what man’s mind and will can comprehend and visualize is not new; people have been ascribing to Yahweh God all sorts of notions, as God being everything in the Universe and as God being unconditional love that yearns to please man regardless of man’s determination to remain wicked…

It is not about our comfort level; it is about what Yahweh God has Revealed!:

16 The temple of God has no common ground with idols, and that is what we are – the temple of the living God. **We have God’s word for it: I will make my home among them and live with them; I will be their God and they shall be my people. **

17 Then come away from them and keep aloof, says the Lord. Touch nothing that is unclean, and I will welcome you 18 and be your father, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Almighty Lord. (2 Corinthians 6:16-18)
…now, we can argue semantics all the way to Heaven or hell… but the fact remains that it is Yahweh God Almighty that claims to Be our Father… anyone who choses to believe otherwise is welcome to do so… please, just don’t pretend that Scriptures are Teaching such understanding of God’s Revelation!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I will say it again Jesus who came from the Father and is united with the Father tells us he is our Father in heaven. Who else has seen the face of God.Moses only saw God back as he passed by.

Are we going to bring this gender issue even on God? Huge problem in the world right now - we define feminine right now as anyone who wears lipstick and a dress.

Changing that would be making God in a God of OUR own imagination and would be a false God and breaking the commandment and spreading that idea would be even worse.

Hi, HU!

…two points of clarification:

• that’s society’s definition of the female gender (Christians cannot embrace such nonsense)
• they don’t need to wear dresses or put on lipstick–now they only need to claim that in their mind they see themselves as females (ditto for females that want to be “boys”)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

This is what the Baphomet image refers to, as depicted by the 19th century Roman Catholic philosopher Alphonse Louis Constant.

Hi!

…for the purpose of clarification I thought that a little more information was needed:

Since 1856, the name Baphomet has been associated with a “Sabbatic Goat” image drawn by Eliphas Levi[3] which contains binary elements representing the “sum total of the universe” (e.g. male and female, good and evil, etc.).[4] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet

)
…such ideologies originate in the occult.

…while you may not have gotten the full picture, Constant left the Church ceasing to be a Roman Catholic:

Like many socialists, he propagated socialism as “true Christianity” and denounced the Churches as corruptors of the teachings of Christ.[citation needed] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliphas_Levi

)
His personal beliefs are a far cry from Catholicism:

The major reason for this was Constant’s neo-Catholic background, resulting in a determined Catholic self-understanding. For this reason, Constant equalled (“true”) Catholicism and occultism. Developing the neo-Catholic notion of a “primitive revelation”, Constant claimed that the Kabbalah and the Tarot were the means to decipher the true essence of the single true, universal religion, which is Catholicism.[citation needed] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliphas_Levi

)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

In Jewish (and Christian) theology, the Shekinah is the spirit of G-d, which, according to Kabbala, is regarded as feminine.

Since Judaism does not believe in Jesus as the Son of G-d, the former is not linked to the notion of a masculine Person of G-d. I realize that Christianity also considers G-d to be spirit, not flesh; but G-d Incarnate does assume a masculine form.

Of course, the notion of a gendered G-d is itself rather absurd within the Abrahamic religions. Still, if we do anthropomorphize G-d as a feminine being, that might tilt our conception of G-d further in the direction of a nurturing and merciful mother rather than a stern and just father, in keeping with our own gender stereotypes.

Hi, Meltzerboy!

…we Know that God is Spirit; hence, no genderism… yet, if He chooses to Reveal Himself as our Father, how can man determine that he should view God as a feminine persona?:

9 They had left in tears, I will comfort them as I lead them back; I will guide them to streams of water, by a smooth path where they will not stumble. For I am a father to Israel

, and Ephraim is my first-born son. (Jeremiah 31:9)
Conversely, when He speaks of Israel, He includes terms such as bride/wife… would God spouse female to female coupling… even is just in a visual/metaphorical term?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The Baphomet image is a representation of God that matches your above description.

Hi!

…sorry to disagree:

Baphomet (/ˈbæfoʊmɛt/; from Medieval Latin Baphometh, Baffometi, Occitan Bafometz) is a **term originally used to describe an idol or other deity **

that the Knights Templar were accused of worshipping and that subsequently was incorporated into disparate occult and mystical traditions. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baphomet)
…since you describe your religious preference as part of the occultist you may not differentiate Yahweh God from an idol (such as a half-goat & half-man thing); the rest of us cannot accept your interpretation of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Then you didn’t get the memo??

FEELINGS are now the new truth!!!

ICXC NIKA

Thanks for that one, Eddie! I really needed it!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi, Meltzerboy!

…we Know that God is Spirit; hence, no genderism… yet, if He chooses to Reveal Himself as our Father, how can man determine that he should view God as a feminine persona?:

Conversely, when He speaks of Israel, He includes terms such as bride/wife… would God spouse female to female coupling… even is just in a visual/metaphorical term?

Maran atha!

Angel

Israel was a patriarchal culture in ancient times, and still is. Wouldn’t it be logical that G-d speaks to us in terms our culture can best understand, that is, as our Father rather than our Mother? With regard to female coupling, G-d calls not only Israel His bride but also the Sabbath is regarded as G-d’s Bride. If one were to take this literally, one might think G-d favors polygamy, which indeed was a custom in ancient times among the Jews as well as other cultures. Does G-d thus favor polygamous relationships, or does the use of the term “bride,” whether it refers to G-d’s Sabbath, Israel, or the Church, serve as a metaphor for purity, compassion, nurturing, and the perpetual rebirth of Mother Nature?

 

[jcrichton]

I don’t understand why things like this are so important in the whole scheme of things or in the long run. If in faith we meet God face to face, then we will know. What difference will it make if God is male, female or genderless? Seems other things that Jesus spoke about, for instance the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the sick, about love, about the Golden Rule would be more important. When I recite the Lord’s Prayer I have prayed “Our Father” because that is how the writers in those times penned the words. It was a very patriarchal time. But I don’t know for certain whether God embodies a gender or is gender neutral. And I really spend little time thinking about it. There seems so much more the world needs than to worry about these types of things. We truly do walk only in our particular faiths. Not by sight.

Hi!

…ever heard the expression: “the proof is in the pudding?” (actual: the proof is in the eating of the pudding)

This thread, as any other, bring people from different walks into the discussion… when Christians fail to Stand for Christ (Something) they will, by practice, fall/stand for anything…

…have you noticed how hollowood and the bleeding hearts keep pushing gender definitions on animals… shows and movies make an adamant statement: “he” or “she” when someone states “it.”

This is anthropomorphizing animals into human beings… a dog, cat, lion, zebra, fish do not understand such concepts… yet, at least in North America, people are bent on dotting the “i” and crossing the “t;” well, at least when it comes to animals… though it is quite interesting how children can be tagged with “it” when making reference to them–even in the event that a sonogram has been done and the child’s gender has been determined. (This of course plays to the abortionist agenda: ‘not a human child–could be mango or guppy…’)

…so where would you set the limits on how man can view/define/determine Who and What Yahweh God Is?

…is that determined by God’s Own Revelation or by man’s whimsical chameleon-toddler mindset?

…right now, on this thread, we have a self-confessed occultist trying to spouse the idea that anything or everything is ok with God… do you “feel” the same?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I feel like most of you guys are understanding it as God himself is a “female”.
Not sure if you did read the blog, but they are saying that there isn’t 1 God that its actually 2, and the bride of the lamb is that female god (One of the things they use to justify that there is a female god

Hi!

…yeah… many times it’s about the “argument” not so much about the query or the content… so, a simple topic may be hijacked by numerous tangents in order for the hijacker to import their own themes…

The blog is fully wrong as the Bride of Christ has been Revealed as the Church:

24 and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives to their husbands, in everything. 25 Husbands should love their wives just as Christ loved the Church and sacrificed himself for her 26 to make her holy. He made her clean by washing her in water with a form of words, 27 so that when he took her to himself she would be glorious, with no speck or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and faultless. 28 In the same way, husbands must love their wives as they love their own bodies; for a man to love his wife is for him to love himself. 29 A man never hates his own body, but he feeds it and looks after it; and that is the way Christ treats the Church, 30 because it is his body-and we are its living parts. 31 For this reason, a man must leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one body. 32 This mystery has many implications; but I am saying it applies to Christ and the Church.

(Ephesians 5:24-32)
The problem that blogger has is called disassociation–he/she is making up things as needed to fill-in his/her theological blanks (much like forcing together pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, just because they have some themes in common).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Israel was a patriarchal culture in ancient times, and still is. Wouldn’t it be logical that G-d speaks to us in terms our culture can best understand, that is, as our Father rather than our Mother? With regard to female coupling, G-d calls not only Israel His bride but also the Sabbath is regarded as G-d’s Bride. If one were to take this literally, one might think G-d favors polygamy, which indeed was a custom in ancient times among the Jews as well as other cultures. Does G-d thus favor polygamous relationships, or does the use of the term “bride,” whether it refers to G-d’s Sabbath, Israel, or the Church, serve as a metaphor for purity, compassion, nurturing, and the perpetual rebirth of Mother Nature?

Hi, Meltzerboy!

…we are seeking understanding… my argument is that we must not infuse into God that which is comfortable to us… if God were to Reveal that He is “Israel’s mother” and “Israel is a husband to God” then I would make the same argument for not espousing to God a male persona since it is His Revelation that I (and all who purport to seek God) must adhere to.

…then there are clear sings of metaphor… the Sabbath’s Unity to God means that it is bound to God not that the Sabbath is a female entity…

…again, where does man draw the line, at his own understandings or at God’s Revelation?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[meltzerboy]

Hi, Meltzerboy!

…we are seeking understanding… my argument is that we must not infuse into God that which is comfortable to us… if God were to Reveal that He is “Israel’s mother” and “Israel is a husband to God” then I would make the same argument for not espousing to God a male persona since it is His Revelation that I (and all who purport to seek God) must adhere to.

…then there are clear sings of metaphor… the Sabbath’s Unity to God means that it is bound to God not that the Sabbath is a female entity…

…again, where does man draw the line, at his own understandings or at God’s Revelation?

Maran atha!

Angel

G-d’s revelation must always be interpreted by mankind, who, even if divinely inspired, is always fallible in its interpretations, in my view. FYI, in Judaism, the Sabbath is referred to as the Sabbath bride. Both this and G-d the Father may be interpreted as metaphor. As previously noted, G-d reveals Himself to us in a way we can best understand and appreciate. Isn’t this the argument why G-d did not, at first, reveal Himself to the Hebrew people as a Trinity?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Israel was a patriarchal culture in ancient times, and still is. Wouldn’t it be logical that G-d speaks to us in terms our culture can best understand, that is, as our Father rather than our Mother? With regard to female coupling, G-d calls not only Israel His bride but also the Sabbath is regarded as G-d’s Bride. If one were to take this literally, one might think G-d favors polygamy, which indeed was a custom in ancient times among the Jews as well as other cultures. Does G-d thus favor polygamous relationships, or does the use of the term “bride,” whether it refers to G-d’s Sabbath, Israel, or the Church, serve as a metaphor for purity, compassion, nurturing, and the perpetual rebirth of Mother Nature?

Ok, not to stir the pot or anything here, but just what does ‘patriarchal culture’ have to do, really, with Christ’s message?

Let’s examine another teaching. “Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood or you shall not have life within you.”

That was such a hard saying that a lot of the people walked away.

The culture of the times, whether patriarchal or matriarchal, saw that statement as unacceptable, as ‘cannibalism’.

Yet Christ stated it. And He didn’t bother to call them back and say, “Wait, that’s only symbolic”.

So why on earth would Someone who taught that we must eat His Flesh and drink His blood somehow think, "oh say, I’d better not refer to G-d as anything but ‘male’, because otherwise the people just wouldn’t listen or accept it.

Did He hang back from stating the truth about our needing to eat His Flesh because, “the people just wouldn’t understand this, from their cultural perspective’, and wouldn’t accept it? I’d better couch this in terms they can understand even if those terms aren’t accurate, and when people are more advanced, the terms I use now will be ‘changed’ because they’ll understand I couldn’t say what I wanted 'back then?”"

See how the whole argument of "Jesus had to say ‘this teaching’ because of ‘the culture’ but He really meant something else’ just breaks down when you bring out His teachings that absolutely shattered the culture?

 

[meltzerboy]

Ok, not to stir the pot or anything here, but just what does ‘patriarchal culture’ have to do, really, with Christ’s message?

Let’s examine another teaching. “Eat My Flesh, Drink My Blood or you shall not have life within you.”

That was such a hard saying that a lot of the people walked away.

The culture of the times, whether patriarchal or matriarchal, saw that statement as unacceptable, as ‘cannibalism’.

Yet Christ stated it. And He didn’t bother to call them back and say, “Wait, that’s only symbolic”.

So why on earth would Someone who taught that we must eat His Flesh and drink His blood somehow think, "oh say, I’d better not refer to G-d as anything but ‘male’, because otherwise the people just wouldn’t listen or accept it.

Did He hang back from stating the truth about our needing to eat His Flesh because, “the people just wouldn’t understand this, from their cultural perspective’, and wouldn’t accept it? I’d better couch this in terms they can understand even if those terms aren’t accurate, and when people are more advanced, the terms I use now will be ‘changed’ because they’ll understand I couldn’t say what I wanted 'back then?”"

See how the whole argument of "Jesus had to say ‘this teaching’ because of ‘the culture’ but He really meant something else’ just breaks down when you bring out His teachings that absolutely shattered the culture?

From the Christian perspective, I think I understand what you are saying. Nonetheless, Jesus also took His time appearing to the Jews in the form of G-d Incarnate, and even when He did, not all were ready to accept Him as G-d or the Messiah, or to accept the Trinity. Imagine though if He had appeared earlier to the ancient Hebrews. As I noted previously, isn’t the idea of gradual revelation one that is used by Christianity to explain the additional, new covenant as well as the Trinitarian G-d? Even attitudes toward slavery and polygamy were not immediately condemned by G-d, but only gradually disallowed. Needless to say, the meaning of the Eucharistic message of Jesus is still hotly debated today among Catholics and Protestants, as is the meaning of Jesus Himself among Quakers, Mormons, JW’s, Protestants, and of course Jews.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From the Christian perspective, I think I understand what you are saying. Nonetheless, Jesus also took His time appearing to the Jews in the form of G-d Incarnate, and even when He did, not all were ready to accept Him as G-d or the Messiah, or to accept the Trinity. Imagine though if He had appeared earlier to the ancient Hebrews. As I noted previously, isn’t the idea of gradual revelation one that is used by Christianity to explain the additional, new covenant as well as the Trinitarian G-d? Even attitudes toward slavery and polygamy were not immediately condemned by G-d, but only gradually disallowed. Needless to say, the meaning of the Eucharistic message of Jesus is still hotly debated today among Catholics and Protestants, as is the meaning of Jesus Himself among Quakers, Mormons, JW’s, Protestants, and of course Jews.

Right, gradual revelation, but not to the point that the original teaching was seen as false.
Chattel slavery (which is something quite different from the slavery practiced by the Jewish people at the time of Christ) is something that itself ‘evolved’ and is rightly condemned. But even today, something like indentured servitude (AKA ‘apprenticeship’ in the Middle Ages) is not seen as slavery, but that would have itself been the kind of ‘slavery’ that was seen by Christ. Didn’t the Jewish people have, even 50 years, a manumission of all slaves, such that only those who asked to continue as slaves were ‘kept’? All others had to be released, legally?

The idea that G-d is male (in so far as our limited minds can accept gender) cannot be made to teach, “no wait, he isn’t really male, or ‘just male’, without invalidating that original teaching. Fathers are not mothers, and fatherhood, pace ‘modern society’ is not interchangeable with motherhood. My own son is a single father, to make a case in point. Obviously many of his interactions with the children have him acting in a 'mother’s role”. But he is not their mother. And for a woman who is a single mother, many of her actions will have her taking a ‘father’s role’, but she is not the father. The two genders of male and female are completely different, even if some actions performed by one or the other are exactly the same, they don’t make the people performing them into a different gender, or into a somehow blended, ‘male/female’ gender’.

 

[Kaninchen]

Ascribing human characteristics to God is the road to idolatry.