God, male, female, neither?

[pilots13]

“if He was trying to avoid masculinity or femininity He would have used Creator.”
This is honestly one of the most sensible points for God = He I’ve seen so far. My one comeback would be to ask how exact is what we have written to reality? Obviosuly the scriptures were influenced by God, but they were written by humans. We know all the books of the bible have human influence to them. So why not think the writer chose to use male terms because of the society of the day vs it being the exact quote from whoever. For example, remember all the Gospels were written no earlier than 40 years after the death of Christ. That’s a lot of time for humanity to skew reality.

“He intended to come as a man, not a woman, or He would have been a woman.”
Well God kinda had to choose one or the other (unless you want to go down the transgender road) Just because God chose a man doesn’t necessarily equate God is masculine.

" If we take it for what you want, then God is not only a female, but a female hen, with wings and a beak."
Maybe God is a chicken? That would be a twist on our concept of things if true…
My point to that scripture quote was to show that God is referred to in the feminine in the Bible, and by Jesus himself. It’s not the only place God is compared to a female or a feminine object. Yes, the masculine references dominate in numbers, but the female ones do exist. My question is do we just ignore those then? And it too can go back to my first point in this post about the human influences over what was actually written in scripture.

" So can a dolphin represent God to us just because the life of God is in the dolphin and keeps it in existence?"
No, because dolphins were not made in God’s image. Humans were.

“. I understand what you are saying but you are drawing a parallel between two things with no Church teaching to back you.”
And in a topic for another thread, this is one of the issues that I think hurts the Church more than anything else. Stubbornness. I’m going to scripture and the teachings of Christ in making my point. You are saying my point can’t have any merit unless there is Church teaching behind it too. People entrench themselves behind Church teachings as if the Church as never been wrong in any of it’s teachings and lose site of the original teachings and messages of Christ himself.

“Instead of women trying to do the impossible and become a priest,” “The point is that men have always represented God to the people and this role cannot be assumed properly by a woman. No matter how hard we try, it is impossible.”
Wow… I’m not even going to touch that one here. Another thread… Another day…

“I am well aware of pagan religions that treat many objects as god.”
And by pagan religions do you mean Protestant?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

We know all the books of the bible have human influence to them… That’s a lot of time for humanity to skew reality.

So humans are stronger than God to you? That they have the ability and authority to skew the reality that God intended. Interesting…

And in a topic for another thread, this is one of the issues that I think hurts the Church more than anything else. Stubbornness.

Because you won’t assent to the Church, as all are subject to the Roman Pontiff, she is the one that is stubborn? Interesting…

I’m going to scripture and the teachings of Christ in making my point. You are saying my point can’t have any merit unless there is Church teaching behind it too. People entrench themselves behind Church teachings as if the Church as never been wrong in any of it’s teachings and lose site of the original teachings and messages of Christ himself.

1. So you’re saying the Church doesn’t preach the original teachings and messages of Christ? That the two are mutually exclusive? Wow.
2. The Church has never been wrong in any teachings of the Deposit of Faith. Prove to the forum otherwise, if you can.

Why are you Catholic? It’s a simple question and not meant to be provocative. All I want is a simple answer.

 

[Whadyamean]

So humans are stronger than God to you? That they have the ability and authority to skew the reality that God intended. Interesting…

Because you won’t assent to the Church, as all are subject to the Roman Pontiff, she is the one that is stubborn? Interesting…

1. So you’re saying the Church doesn’t preach the original teachings and messages of Christ? That the two are mutually exclusive? Wow.
2. The Church has never been wrong in any teachings of the Deposit of Faith. Prove to the forum otherwise, if you can.

Why are you Catholic? It’s a simple question and not meant to be provocative. All I want is a simple answer.

Wow. Trevor. Read some history and some newspapers, my friend.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Wow. Trevor. Read some history and some newspapers, my friend.

Good argument.

 

[pilots13]

So humans are stronger than God to you? That they have the ability and authority to skew the reality that God intended. Interesting…

No humans are not stronger than God. But God did give humans free will. Are you saying the books of the bible have no human influence over them? Why do you think we have 4 Gospels and not just one? Because 4 different humans put their own twists onto the Christ story.

1. So you’re saying the Church doesn’t preach the original teachings and messages of Christ? That the two are mutually exclusive? Wow.

They do preach the teachings of Christ, but they also teach messages not given directly by Christ. Christ never directly addressed countless topics that simply didn’t exist when he lived (Nuclear weapons for example) and countless other teachings that have become official teachings of the Church hundreds, if not thousands of years after he taught. That’s the distinction I’m trying to make.

Why are you Catholic? It’s a simple question and not meant to be provocative. All I want is a simple answer.

Is there ever a simple answer to that? To replace the long paragraph I just deleted: I was raised it, I believe in God, Christ, the Eucharist, the Pope as our leader, etc. I’m really just a typical American Catholic that doesn’t know everything, attends a parish that is middle of the road (with one end “we still do Latin” and the other “Gay, sure, come on in!”) and am simply question these topics to get a better understanding of things. Should I not be questioning the Church? Is that healthy? Should I just blindly follow the rules? (again, another topic, another thread really)

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

No humans are not stronger than God. But God did give humans free will. Are you saying the books of the bible have no human influence over them? Why do you think we have 4 Gospels and not just one? Because 4 different humans put their own twists onto the Christ story.

Read Catechism paragrapghs 104 - 108 and you’ll get your answer regarding human influence. Of why we have four seperate Gospels, because each one had an intended audience. Mark for a non-Jewish audience (mainly Roman auidence), Luke for gentiles auidence and non-Hebrew recipients, Matthew for a Jewish auidence, and John was meant for Jews / Christians as it is the deepest theological Gospel of the four.

They do preach the teachings of Christ, but they also teach messages not given directly by Christ. Christ never directly addressed countless topics that simply didn’t exist when he lived (Nuclear weapons for example) and countless other teachings that have become official teachings of the Church hundreds, if not thousands of years after he taught. That’s the distinction I’m trying to make.

That is true, but remember the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church in all truth. Whatever she binds as truth, is truth. Also anything she teaches does not contradict what was taught before, as the promise is kept that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.

 

[Whadyamean]

Read Catechism paragrapghs 104 - 108 and you’ll get your answer regarding human influence. Of why we have four seperate Gospels, because each one had an intended audience. Mark for a non-Jewish audience (mainly Roman auidence), Luke for gentiles auidence and non-Hebrew recipients, Matthew for a Jewish auidence, and John was meant for Jews / Christians as it is the deepest theological Gospel of the four…

I understood that there are four Gospels because one of the deciders put forth that “There are four directions, four elements (and some other fours) so should it not follow that there be four Gospels as well?” I just moved, so I’m sorry I can’t reach out to my references right now. else I’d provide it.

 

[JohnVIII]

I understood that there are four Gospels because one of the deciders put forth that “There are four directions, four elements (and some other fours) so should it not follow that there be four Gospels as well?” I just moved, so I’m sorry I can’t reach out to my references right now. else I’d provide it.

Irenaeus: Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 11, paragraph 8.

Before Irenaeus, there were so many differing versions of Christianity that it was said that everyone was scattered ‘to the four winds’. So, the number of gospels were set at four so as to gather all from the four winds into catholic unity.

Marcion was the first to make a canon of Scripture. The Catholic canon of scripture came in reaction to the canon of Marcion, as Marcion was considered to be a heretic.

Tertullian had alot to say about the canon of scripture as well, but I bring up Tertullian because in the end he left catholic unity to follow the “New Prophecy” (Montanism). The New Prophecy, among other things, had female bishops!, and believed that God could be in both a male and a female mode. Tertullian was an indispensable father of the Church, some scholars even claim that Tertullian started the Roman Catholic version of Christianity, so I think it is worth mentioning in this thread that this major Church father ended his days in a group that believed that God is both male & female and their priesthood likewise had both male & female priests.

 

[shocktrooper]

Irenaeus: Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 11, paragraph 8.

Before Irenaeus, there were so many differing versions of Christianity that it was said that everyone was scattered ‘to the four winds’. So, the number of gospels were set at four so as to gather all from the four winds into catholic unity.

Marcion was the first to make a canon of Scripture. The Catholic canon of scripture came in reaction to the canon of Marcion, as Marcion was considered to be a heretic.

Tertullian had alot to say about the canon of scripture as well, but I bring up Tertullian because in the end he left catholic unity to follow the “New Prophecy” (Montanism). The New Prophecy, among other things, had female bishops!, and believed that God could be in both a male and a female mode. Tertullian was an indispensable father of the Church, some scholars even claim that Tertullian started the Roman Catholic version of Christianity, so I think it is worth mentioning in this thread that this major Church father ended his days in a group that believed that God is both male & female and their priesthood likewise had both male & female priests.

Yes, Montanism is a heresy. Their view on having female priests is also heretical. By extension, that view held today would also be heretical, such as in many Protestant beliefs. I think it is typically a good thing NOT to hold a belief that has already been condemned as wrong.

Pax Christi.

 

[Whadyamean]

Irenaeus: Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 11, paragraph 8.

Before Irenaeus, there were so many differing versions of Christianity that it was said that everyone was scattered ‘to the four winds’. So, the number of gospels were set at four so as to gather all from the four winds into catholic unity.

Marcion was the first to make a canon of Scripture. The Catholic canon of scripture came in reaction to the canon of Marcion, as Marcion was considered to be a heretic.

Tertullian had alot to say about the canon of scripture as well, but I bring up Tertullian because in the end he left catholic unity to follow the “New Prophecy” (Montanism). The New Prophecy, among other things, had female bishops!, and believed that God could be in both a male and a female mode. Tertullian was an indispensable father of the Church, some scholars even claim that Tertullian started the Roman Catholic version of Christianity, so I think it is worth mentioning in this thread that this major Church father ended his days in a group that believed that God is both male & female and their priesthood likewise had both male & female priests.

How cool is that? They sound very advanced. I guess that bothers Shocktrooper, but it is always good to remember that “faith” is synonymous with “belief” and not “knowledge,” especially with a capital “K.”

 

[JohnVIII]

Yes, Montanism is a heresy. Their view on having female priests is also heretical. By extension, that view held today would also be heretical, such as in many Protestant beliefs. I think it is typically a good thing NOT to hold a belief that has already been condemned as wrong.

Pax Christi.

And in contrast to what you think, I think it IS typically a GOOD thing to hold fast to a belief, if you feel sure that you are right, especially if some authority has condemned that belief. Because your reward in heaven will be greater if you held fast to the truth even in the face of a council of the Church condemning you for it. I’m not judging you for your stand, I’m just contrasting, that’s all.

Personally I DO believe that the Holy Spirit is Female. And I am willing to hold to this belief even if my Church (or any Church) should choose to condemn me for it. But if you wish to believe that the Holy Spirit is not Female, I’m ok with you having that belief.

 

[Doves411]

Maybe this can help?

ewtn.com/library/Theology/NOTMOTHR.HTM

 

[eamonnroma]

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?

I have recently put a separate post about God as Mother. Pope John Paul I stated that God is both Mother and Father - so yes God is Mother, that does not mean female.

Thanks!

 

[CarmenParvus]

God is immaterial, so he does not have a sex, but his nature is most similar to that of a male. Biologically speaking, man creates outside of himself, women bears within herself. God is outside of Creation, therefore making him most like a male. Feminine nature, on the other hand, is the complement to masculine nature, which is why Adam was created first and Eve second as his companion. For this reason, St. Paul said, “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” (1 Cor 11:7) Note that I did not take this directly from the Catechism: it consists of snippets from theology courses and some personal interpretation.

 

[purplerosa]

so I know this is a bit late but, and while I do not know Hebrew, I do know that Hebrew does not have a gender-neutral noun, so a table has a gender, etc, linguistically speaking you would use he or she for any Hebrew word in relation to the gender of the word. by this logic, as god is definitely not human, God is also neither male or female