God is a female?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CMB
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
corvidae said:
But you are neglecting what many here are saying. That God as God is sexless. However, when God manifested Himself in human form, He took the form of a Male. And that very same Jesus Christ called God “Father”. What God has done, who are we to say it is wrong.

A lone Raven
Click to expand...
Most of this is based on an appeal to the authority of a completely unprovable primise. As such you really can’t affirm any of it outside of simple belief in one religious tradition out of thousands and many far older and more in common with observable facts in nature.
 
mjolnir said:
Most of this is based on an appeal to the authority of a completely unprovable primise. As such you really can’t affirm any of it outside of simple belief in one religious tradition out of thousands and many far older and more in common with observable facts in nature.
Click to expand...
So are you saying you are basing your beliefs outside Christainity?
 
mjolnir,
the hammer of thor,
interesting name

Anyway, you claim we have no authority in the Bible because you reject it. Which is true, if you reject it, you would say the Bible has no authority. We are not arguing that God is male, we are arguing that God is sexless judging from natural law and natural occurances. We are saying God has male attributes and became a Male human based on what our Faith says. You do not have to accept that part.

You are arguing Faith on Faith, without giving authority to either. It does not and will not work. We must have some kind of common ground before we can talk.

As far as what is in harmony with nature, we believe nature shows the handwriting of the author of nature, but we do not believe that nature itself is the author. What you see as more in tune with nature, we may not.

A lone Raven

p.s.- We do not believe that Females are the origins of Life, nor are Males, God is the origin of life, but He uses nature to do it. Females bear the life created by God in their bodies, it is true, but Males contribute as much as females do as well.
 
st_lucy said:
So are you saying you are basing your beliefs outside Christainity?
Click to expand...
I guess I would not expect a non-catholic to agree with Catholic teachings. At least I assume from the post mjolnir is not Catholic.

** All** Catholic teachings can be referenced to the Bible. Tradition, Magisterium and the Bible are ** always** 100% compatible.
 
EBSSTF4 said:
I guess I would not expect a non-catholic to agree with Catholic teachings. At least I assume from the post mjolnir is not Catholic.

** All** Catholic teachings can be referenced to the Bible. Tradition, Magisterium and the Bible are ** always** 100% compatible.
Click to expand...
I am sorry you are right I just looked at mjolnir’s background, Ijust assumed that he/she was christain. 😦

So I am sorry mjolnir for assuming that.
 
corvidae said:
mjolnir,
the hammer of thor,
interesting name

Anyway, you claim we have no authority in the Bible because you reject it. Which is true, if you reject it, you would say the Bible has no authority. We are not arguing that God is male, we are arguing that God is sexless judging from natural law and natural occurances. We are saying God has male attributes and became a Male human based on what our Faith says. You do not have to accept that part.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that I ‘reject’ it. I’m just saying that there is not real rationale for believing it over say another religious tome.
You are arguing Faith on Faith, without giving authority to either. It does not and will not work. We must have some kind of common ground before we can talk.
Click to expand...
Actually, I’m just offering my own observations which suggest to me that females share a very important attribute which is commonly attributed with god (i.e. life-bearing). Men simply don’t have that attribute so it appears on first blush to be odd that one should consider god Male.
As far as what is in harmony with nature, we believe nature shows the handwriting of the author of nature, but we do not believe that nature itself is the author. What you see as more in tune with nature, we may not.
Click to expand...
Well that is true but it’s my guess that you are using cultural ‘filters’ to deny that females share life-bearing with the All Life-Bearer god. If Life-Bearing and Love (i.e. nurturing) are two key attributes of god then I’d argue that those are two attributes which are far more in common with the Female sex than the Male sex and thus might make more since to many that god be articulated as a goddess.
p.s.- We do not believe that Females are the origins of Life, nor are Males, God is the origin of life, but He uses nature to do it. Females bear the life created by God in their bodies, it is true, but Males contribute as much as females do as well.
Click to expand...
So it appears that god has a closer connection with Females, being that they are god’s chief means of Life-Bearing and nurturing, two of your chief attributes of god.

Man appears to only supply semen and perhaps protection. This falls in line with many pagan religious practices.
 
God seems to have chosen to reveal Himself as male in scripture.
So if it is good enough for Him then it is good enough for me .
 
I am not sure why this heresy of thought has crept into the Church. A priest in my parish does this too. I know its wrong and ignore him and pray for him.
Its simple. NOT a SHE.
 
While I don;t think God is female (or male), I had to respond to this quote from post #13:
Why? For the simple reason that she is not the absolute origin in human generation but the collaborating and contributing cause, as it is the man who impregnates. Thus it is most fitting that God in becoming a human being became a male rather than a female.
Click to expand...
Was this written in the fourteenth century, or did it’s author merely have a fourteenth century understanding of human reproduction? Man is not the “absolute origin” in human reproduction; just try “impregnating” a woman without ova.
 
THere is a feminist movement in the Church and this is the problem. There are people in my parish that want us to say the Our Father, Our Mother.

It is heinous. I am not going to accept this even if I am the last person to say no to this nonsense.

Its anathama.
 
BlindSheep said:
. . .
Was this written in the fourteenth century, or did it’s author merely have a fourteenth century understanding of human reproduction? Man is not the “absolute origin” in human reproduction; just try “impregnating” a woman without ova.
Click to expand...
The author is fully aware of that; what he is doing is using the example of human reproduction to highlight the fittingness of the male - since he goes “out of himself” as the initiator to create (while the women interiorly receives) - being the “vehicle” for the Incarnation of the Son.
 
**I cannot make a choice in this biased poll. There should be a 3rd choice. “God has no gender”.

However, if you are talking about His earthly form, Jesus, then yes…He was male.
**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top