God, male, female, neither?

[Ourboy]

This is so controversial and new to me. I have never heard of God being a woman.

I will continue to believe that God is a man. He created man on His own Image. He created women from the side of Adam and it doesnt say women on His image.

I think this is some sort of invention so as not to ofend the feminists. One more way of pleasing others more than pleasing God. Jesus is God and Jesus is a man. He came as Man for a reason. a Father cannot be the mother. This is a blasphemy against God and I resent such a notion that God has no gender. Jesus called Him the Father. That is good enough for me. Jesus is sitting at the right Hand of the Father, this indicates to me that He sees God. The Epistles also says that when Jesus conquers death, He will give the Kingdom back to the Father.

The United Church of Christ is trying to make the Trinity gender neutral by doing away with “God the father,” replacing it with “Triune God.” But God can’t be “triune” with recognizing that is not simply “God” as the head but “God the Father.” So I agree with what you’re saying. Here’s a link to an article about this heretical church

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2749837/posts

 

[wisdomseeker]

The United Church of Christ is trying to make the Trinity gender neutral by doing away with “God the father,” replacing it with “Triune God.” But God can’t be “triune” with recognizing that is not simply “God” as the head but “God the Father.” So I agree with what you’re saying. Here’s a link to an article about this heretical church

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2749837/posts

I am going to quit this. Frankly i find so prophane to talk about God in such a manner.

 

[razredge]

The Trinity does not have a gender, gender and sex are biological and social constructs, they have no real meaning to a transcendental, immaterial being.

We call God, Father in purely figurative and symbolic sense.

 

[JohnVIII]

Jesus is male and He is God. His Mother Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit when Christ was conceived, and as I see it, at that moment of conception, Mary gave Jesus His human nature and the Holy Spirit gave Jesus His divine nature, so then it can be said that the Holy Spirit was also the Mother of Jesus, hence, in this respect, the Holy Spirit is Female.

 

[shocktrooper]

Obviously God has no sex or gender since that is a biological property of some creatures.
God is not a creature so to say that he is a He or a She in anything other than a figurative sense is nonsensical.

Razredge, are you saying that God is not masculine? I don’t see how masculinity can be figurative when it goes to the essence of who a father is. It is a reality, not a symbolic use of language.

 

[shocktrooper]

Jesus is male and He is God. His Mother Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit when Christ was conceived, and as I see it, at that moment of conception, Mary gave Jesus His human nature and the Holy Spirit gave Jesus His divine nature, so then it can be said that the Holy Spirit was also the Mother of Jesus, hence, in this respect, the Holy Spirit is Female.

Are you suggesting that Mary conceived by another female? Do you know the implications of what you are suggesting, if you are?

 

[shocktrooper]

This touches on the topic.

peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

God bless.

 

[shocktrooper]

God is masculine, which is not the same as male (which is a reference to genetic makeup and secondary sex characteristics). Masculine has to do with character traits inherent in the nature of the Being. God is the iniator, the creator, the active, the Father. A male is a father because he is also masculine, not the other way around.

Yes God has all positive traits including those proper to mothers, but in his nature he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not Mother.

puzzleannie, the body is just an outward sign of our gender since the soul is the animator of the body. If I lost my body, I would still be male because my soul is male. I am only disagreeing with you on the issue of “male” being ONLY genetic. When my soul leaves my body, it does not seize from being male. I will always be male, even in heaven. Hopefully I will make it there.

I equate “male” and “masculine” to be one in the same, so I think promethius is correct on this one.

… but “man” and “woman” are specific to sex and to humans, of which, God is neither.

 

[shocktrooper]

"puzzleannie:

God is masculine, which is not the same as male (which is a reference to genetic makeup and secondary sex characteristics). Masculine has to do with character traits inherent in the nature of the Being. God is the iniator, the creator, the active, the Father. A male is a father because he is also masculine, not the other way around.

Yes God has all positive traits including those proper to mothers, but in his nature he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not Mother.

puzzleannie, the body is just an outward sign of our gender since the soul is the animator of the body. If I lost my body, I would still be male because my soul is male. I am only disagreeing with you on the issue of “male” being ONLY genetic. When my soul leaves my body, it does not seize from being male. I will always be male, even in heaven. Hopefully I will make it there.

I equate “male” and “masculine” to be one in the same, so I think promethius is correct on this one.

… but “man” and “woman” are specific to sex and to humans, of which, God is neither.

puzzleannie, I retract my loyalty to promethius on this one. I should have listened to Dr. Kreeft’s talk one more time before posting. I listened to it too long ago and forgot his reasoning. I am now in your camp. Dr. Kreef’s assertion is that “male is a biological gender” and “masculine is a universal cosmic principle”.

Pax Christi.

 

[JohnVIII]

Are you suggesting that Mary conceived by another female? Do you know the implications of what you are suggesting, if you are?

I am most certainly not implying anything of a homosexual sort, if that is what you got out of what I said! God forbid! Dare I even try to explain further?

How about this: Baptism is being born again by water and by the Spirit. The baptismal font represents a womb and when we are baptized we come out of the water like we were being delivered out of this womb. The water is the Holy Spirit, is it not? You see the representation is that the Holy Spirit has a womb from which we are spiritually born at baptism! Hence, you should be able to see how the Holy Spirit has a Female character to Her.

Now taking this a step further, baptism makes joined to Christ. We become joint heirs with Him and we are “one” with Him by baptism, the scripture says. And of course Jesus was baptized as well by John. So if the Holy Spirit is a spiritual Mother to us at baptism, how much more it must be of Christ of Whom we become one with at baptism? The Holy Spirit is the Mother of Jesus!

I think it would be best to think of the Holy Spirit and Mary becoming one at the point of the incarnation. So, Mary and the Holy Spirit as one gave Christ His nature, which is true God and true man. Mary did not conceive by the Holy Spirit, She conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit used the womb of Mary as the Holy Spirit’s womb, just as water is used by the Holy Spirit as the womb we are born again from.

Please don’t anyone try to change this into some weird discussion about homosexuality. There is nothing about this that is homosexual! I don’t think there is really anything about this that is heterosexuality either, as the orthodox confession is that Christ was conceived “without seed”. It was simply a miracle, which is what “the power of” the holy Spirit means.

The burning bush that Moses saw is said to represent the Virgin Mary. God (Jesus) speaks to Moses from the womb, as it were, of the burning bush. But what is this womb? It consists of a bush (Mary) and fire (the Holy Spirit). The bush and the fire make one burning bush. Likewise, Mary and the Holy Spirit make one Mother of Christ-God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Is God male, female, or gender neutral?

This is confusing for me, because while in the Catechism it says that God is neither male nor female, and has properties of both mother and father…

…in the Bible God is described as “He” and Jesus calls him “Father” not “Mother.”

So why is this? Is God male in the Bible because the languages of the time were like English in that “he” is the generic pronoun and “she” is used only when the subject is known to be female?

Is it appropriate to call God Mother as well as Father?

Thanks!

God is perfect, therefore He has the fullness of both genders, and more. He is revealed to us as a Father and therefore we must address Him as such. Since no one in the Bible or Sacred Tradition has ever called Him mother, it is inappropriate for us to do so as we are just making stuff up. We can only know God in so much as He has revealed himself to us. And He has been revealed to us as a Father, a male persona.

 

[razredge]

Razredge, are you saying that God is not masculine? I don’t see how masculinity can be figurative when it goes to the essence of who a father is. It is a reality, not a symbolic use of language.

God speaks to us in human terms, hence he expresses his love for humanity as being like a loving father, or good shepherd. This is figurative language and does not actually mean God is male or female.

Masculinity is the attributes or characteristics that traditionally pertain to males, so while God might have these attributes (and female attributes as well) they are unrelated to his gender/sex which are biological constructs which God does not have.

 

[ChrisB103]

God is masculine, which is not the same as male (which is a reference to genetic makeup and secondary sex characteristics). Masculine has to do with character traits inherent in the nature of the Being. God is the iniator, the creator, the active, the Father. A male is a father because he is also masculine, not the other way around.

Yes God has all positive traits including those proper to mothers, but in his nature he is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not Mother.

+1 Here’s your answer.

 

[shocktrooper]

Is it appropriate to call God Mother as well as Father?

Thanks!

No, it is not appropriate to call God mother. Even the pope has declare this to be the case.

According to Cardinal Ratzinger:
Quote:
“Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our mind. Christianity is not ‘our’ work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose. Consequently, we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible; it is based on the same Man-God relationship he came to reveal to us.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report)

 

[JohnVIII]

No, it is not appropriate to call God mother. Even the pope has declare this to be the case.

According to Cardinal Ratzinger:
Quote:
“Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our mind. Christianity is not ‘our’ work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose. Consequently, we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible; it is based on the same Man-God relationship he came to reveal to us.” (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report)

Rome has spoken, is that the end of the discussion? May I assume not. First of all, the priest (who I used to call “my priest”) in the Roman Catholic Church I used to go to often referred to God as “Heavenly Mother” and used this term in the Lord’s prayer. It would appear that this idea is at least tolerated by the Church. As for me, I don’t like to refer to God the Father as Mother, but I do like to think of the Holy Spirit as Mother.

The Samaritans were converted to Christianity by Christ and the Apostles (John 4:39, Acts 1:8, 8:25, 8:5, 8:14, 9:31). And yet they held a belief that the Holy Spirit was their Mother, which belief they continued to hold after their conversion to Christianity. As it says in the The Gospel according to Philip, verse 6, “In the days when we were Hebrews we were made orphans, having only our Mother (the Holy Spirit). Yet when we became Messianics, the Father came to be with the Mother for us. When we were Hebrews, we were orphans and had only our Mother, but when we became Christians, we had both Father and Mother.” I have yet to see any reference that shows that an apostle, or any early missionary to the Samaritans, ever corrected them in this view they held about the Holy Spirit being “Mother”. Were they nevertheless just plain wrong? Was all the missionary work done by Christ and the Apostles unto the Samaritans done in vain, seeing that we now know that they were always just a bunch of heretics? How much you want to bet that Justin Martyr (a Samaritan) believed that the Holy Spirit was Mother!

I’m sorry if I sound confrontational, if we are just plain not supposed to discuss a subject any further after Rome has spoken then I will speak no further about it. Thanks!

 

[shocktrooper]

Rome has spoken, is that the end of the discussion? May I assume not. First of all, the priest (who I used to call “my priest”) in the Roman Catholic Church I used to go to often referred to God as “Heavenly Mother” and used this term in the Lord’s prayer. It would appear that this idea is at least tolerated by the Church. As for me, I don’t like to refer to God the Father as Mother, but I do like to think of the Holy Spirit as Mother.

The Samaritans were converted to Christianity by Christ and the Apostles (John 4:39, Acts 1:8, 8:25, 8:5, 8:14, 9:31). And yet they held a belief that the Holy Spirit was their Mother, which belief they continued to hold after their conversion to Christianity. As it says in the The Gospel according to Philip, verse 6, “In the days when we were Hebrews we were made orphans, having only our Mother (the Holy Spirit). Yet when we became Messianics, the Father came to be with the Mother for us. When we were Hebrews, we were orphans and had only our Mother, but when we became Christians, we had both Father and Mother.” I have yet to see any reference that shows that an apostle, or any early missionary to the Samaritans, ever corrected them in this view they held about the Holy Spirit being “Mother”. Were they nevertheless just plain wrong? Was all the missionary work done by Christ and the Apostles unto the Samaritans done in vain, seeing that we now know that they were always just a bunch of heretics? How much you want to bet that Justin Martyr (a Samaritan) believed that the Holy Spirit was Mother!

I’m sorry if I sound confrontational, if we are just plain not supposed to discuss a subject any further after Rome has spoken then I will speak no further about it. Thanks!

JohnVIII, please take it up with the Catholic Church. I am not qualified to make changes to this teaching. Also, The Gospel according to Philip did not make it into Canon, so it obviously has heretical teachings in it. People have said and thought a lot of things throughout history; it does not mean they are all correct. This is why there has to be a single source of authority. We have this authority in the Catholic Church and it is guaranteed by the power of the Holy Spirit. As of now, the Catholic Church does not allow for the Holy Spirit to be depicted as a mother. Who knows if that will change one day. I am not sure if it is an infallible and everlasting teaching. Maybe someone else can chime in here. Until then, though, I shall abide by the Church’s teachings.

The priest you used to go to in the Catholic Church is wrong about this, along with many others that hold this view. As far as Justin Martyr goes, I must claim total ignorance.

Pax Christi.

 

[bancheemom]

We understand Him as ‘He’ because God is ‘Our Father’, and as humans, the father is male. We depict the Holy Spirit as a white dove, or a tongue of fire, or think of the Holy Spirit as a breath or breeze or wind.

No.

From the very beginning, it is said, God made man(kind) in his image." His is best used because at the time of the writers of the books of the bible, they could only conceive of men as being the “People of God,” since women, even in the most liberal traditions were still seen as extensions of their men, or as belongings.

Now that society and men alike understand that women are their own persons, we can read this passage as it was intended. God made man and woman because God is not “neither male nor female,” God is both. How else can God create on his/her own? He is the ultimate creator, and like an asexual being he/she is both.

Consider a sponge in the ocean. It is a living being, but it has no sex. It is both Male and Female, and continues to grow… never does it truly die because the parts that do are replaced by the new life of the same piece of sponge…

God is both Male and Female. God appeared to many, including Moses, and those interpreted him as male. This is solely the way that God chose to appear to them, perhaps for cultural reasons perhaps because in those early spiritual stages we (humans) could not have recognized him as both sexes. I believe that Jesus would have called him Father because Jesus already had a biological Mother, Mary. Why would he then call God Mother? It has nothing to do with anatomy, nor physiology, nor sex at all-afterall, God can create out of him/herself, so why would God need a sex organ?

God is both Male and Female. If you are comfortable calling God Mother, then you can do so. You’re not going to get into trouble, in fact I know a handful of Catholic Nuns that call God Mother. Take care.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

No.

From the very beginning, it is said, God made man(kind) in his image." His is best used because at the time of the writers of the books of the bible, they could only conceive of men as being the “People of God,” since women, even in the most liberal traditions were still seen as extensions of their men, or as belongings.

Now that society and men alike understand that women are their own persons, we can read this passage as it was intended. God made man and woman because God is not “neither male nor female,” God is both. How else can God create on his/her own? He is the ultimate creator, and like an asexual being he/she is both.

Consider a sponge in the ocean. It is a living being, but it has no sex. It is both Male and Female, and continues to grow… never does it truly die because the parts that do are replaced by the new life of the same piece of sponge…

God is both Male and Female. God appeared to many, including Moses, and those interpreted him as male. This is solely the way that God chose to appear to them, perhaps for cultural reasons perhaps because in those early spiritual stages we (humans) could not have recognized him as both sexes. I believe that Jesus would have called him Father because Jesus already had a biological Mother, Mary. Why would he then call God Mother? It has nothing to do with anatomy, nor physiology, nor sex at all-afterall, God can create out of him/herself, so why would God need a sex organ?

God is both Male and Female. If you are comfortable calling God Mother, then you can do so. You’re not going to get into trouble, in fact I know a handful of Catholic Nuns that call God Mother. Take care.

God has revealed Himself as male to us thus we refer to Him with male terminology. Jesus exclusively referred to God with masculine terms such as Abba meaning father.
Why is God referred to as male?
Does God have gender?

 

[UnityofTrinity]

God is seen as Father because He is active, strong, powerful. Also one more thing we should note. To the ancient people femininity is often seen as a changing entity, some that is sweeping. That is why we say “mother nature” and not “father nature”, because nature is quick to change. However God who is static and same yesterday, today, tomorrow, can’t be attributed feminine characteristics. Another fact is the feminine is often seen as the receiver. In biology it is the woman who receives the man’s sperm, and not vice versa. So thus in our relationship to God we see that God is not the receiver, but He had been constantly giving. He is the giver, He is the one who impregnate us with the truth if we open ourselves to acknowledge Him. We, man or woman, must open ourselves and receive God, and thus that make us feminine. This concept is fully articulated in Scripture, which have always described God’s people (Israel and the Church) as feminine, as a woman.

Some of you are adamant that God must be a male since Jesus called God Father. But do you think maybe Jesus was obeying God in calling Him Father? That by calling Him Father Jesus was not revealing the anatomy of His being but about the character of God and ultimately the purpose of His ministry (which is to allow man to call God Abba).

 

[pilots13]

God is neither male or female. God is an eternal being with no gender. You have to understand the context in which the books of the Bible were written. It was a male dominated society (that’s why it’s referred to as mankind vs humankind). Our society today has changed that. We now see women as equals to men, and it’s time that “mankind” verbiage is worked out of our Mass. I feel strongly that most, if not all, the male references to God should be phased out of the Mass. The majority of Churches I attend do this already. It was honestly something I was hopeful would be addressed in the 3rd Missal, but was not surprised when it wasn’t.