HELP! Defending Masculinity of God with stupid Liberal Professor!

[mcteague]

It was not my intention to place my reply within your quoted material.
Simply a technical problem when writing from my iphone

mcteague:

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

This. The problem here is really with the professors in question. Everyone, I thought, who has a Catholic view of things is well aware that when we speak of God as “he” we don’t think God the Father is an actual male physical entity walking around in the clouds. This is childish stuff on the professors’ part. It’s like a petulant 10 year old calling God “she” just to see if it gets a rise out of people. It’s a silly debate to begin with.

Why the discussion continued beyond this bit of common sense is beyond me. Of course God is neither male nor female. Of course Jesus was a man. Of course we when call God Father we are not assuming he has a male body. It is all very silly. I read the whole discussion, but this post on the first page is the one that stood out to me as making the most sense.

Calling God a woman is silly. Calling God a man is silly. Referring to him by masculine is not, so long as we are clear who is being referenced- that being the appropriate rule for most pronoun use. Jesus called him Father, and invited us to do likewise. So we do.

We also know that the Church is often referred to as the bride of Christ. (The feminine to his masculine, has been postulated often here.) We are also properly called the body of Christ, which must be masculine, wouldn’t you think? The bride is also the body. Can you not see how inane the discussion of gender is? When we speak of God the Father, we are expressing a certain characteristic, not ascribing our finite understanding to Him. We do not suppose that a man is more in his image and woman less, just because of the gender difference. That is because He is not a man. He is God, the Creator. He invented gender, before there was a difference between man and woman- before there was man and woman- He already existed as He is and always will be. We ought not to try to confine him simply because our language is inadequate.

The professor ought to be asked why he wants to refer to God in the feminine. Professors are notorious for doing or saying things for the purpose of making kids think outside the box. God is not a man. The grandfather-like image of Him in the clouds is not reality. Was the professor in his pronoun choice insisting that God is a woman, or merely insisting that He is not a man? That is, was he challenging young minds, or speaking nonsense?

 

[Spirithound]

Remember that these professors have probably been giving this course (or one like it) for many years and are well ahead of most objections you might bring up. If you do rock him with some comment he’ll just be stronger the next time around in a couple of years when someone else goes down the same road.

Don’t be afraid to debate them. If they counter your point, then you need another try. If they can’t counter your point, they won’t be able to do it the next time it gets thrown at them either. (and it might just change their beliefs! )

 

[tonyrey]

Only for those who believe that man is - and should be - the dominant partner…
That is sheer prejudice based on living in a society dominated by men from time immemorial. Mental habits die hard!

Your questions are begging the question! You obviously believe man is - and should be - the dominant partner. On what do you base that belief?

Also would this not render ‘Christendom’ the high point of Catholic history as in manifest error? Maybe you need to expand a bit.

Please explain.

You seem to imply that it was the fault of women for not being feminine enough! They certainly had no choice in a patriarchal society. They were not even considered equal in the eyes of the Law. Jesus revolutionised all that. He redressed the balance for them and for children as well. In the early Church women had positions of authority and were respected as full members of the Body of Christ. It is not for nothing that Mary is the Co-Redemptrix…

More that people were masculine in the wrong way; dominant to God and the weak rather than their egos. And thereby wrong in their femininity; passive to their egos.
I’m doing some research in legal history right now. Equal in what sense? Maybe you mean Equity? ‘To treat equally, those unequal, is unjust’ - as the saying goes, so to be equal is unfair sometimes. Equity may result in unequal rulings, but they take context etc into consideration. A legal system without equity is tyrannical, not equality, e.g. should someone who tried to revive someone, but accidentally killed them be tried as a Consultant Cardiologist? This all sounds like a modern misnomer that men and women are exactly the same just with different ‘fittings.’

I specified that men and women were not equal in the eyes of the Judaic Law. They did not have the same rights or even punishments, e.g. men were not stoned for adultery but women were. As **persons **in the sight of God men and women are equal.… Our Father in heaven transcends sex and human distinctions.

Co-Redemptrix in what sense?

Without His mother the Redeemer would not have been born. Mary also shared His suffering and anguish on the Cross.

 

[tonyrey]

We also know that the Church is often referred to as the bride of Christ. (The feminine to his masculine, has been postulated often here.) We are also properly called the body of Christ, which must be masculine, wouldn’t you think? The bride is also the body. Can you not see how inane the discussion of gender is? When we speak of God the Father, we are expressing a certain characteristic, not ascribing our finite understanding to Him. We do not suppose that a man is more in his image and woman less, just because of the gender difference. That is because He is not a man. He is God, the Creator. He invented gender, before there was a difference between man and woman- before there was man and woman- He already existed as He is and always will be. We ought not to try to confine him simply because our language is inadequate.

Precisely! Divinity and masculinity have nothing in common apart from the Incarnation of God in Jesus. The relations between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have no sexual connotation whatsoever. We use those words because Our Lord chose them knowing that the family is the best symbol for The Blessed Trinity.

 

[veritas82]

Your questions are begging the question! You obviously believe man is - and should be - the dominant partner. On what do you base that belief?

This seems strange What do you think Catholic teaching on this is?
In the sense that masculinity is dominant by definition and a man is a manifestation of masculinity then yes. It seems logical to assert man’s function is different in some way’s to woman’s (more striking in a non dualist soul is the form of the body), otherwise why did God make gender? We all believe God made the Universe with purpose and man is subjected to the eternal laws of the universe, so therefore what is the purpose of man and woman?
Well a traditional (Judaic, Christian and Islamic) view is that men generally take authoritative positions because this is the natural order of things. This does not mean women are less i any way, that is a strange modern interpretation whereby success is only based on career and economic gain. Of course men and women have equal status as humans, by virtue of their humanness. The denial of difference is a strange modern perversion that has made us all men (in the wrong sense too!).
That said, this does not mean women should be barred opportunities simply because they are women because that is prejudice. Germain Greer’s latest works really hit the nail on the head; she says she takes everything from the Female Eunuch back because at least women weren’t killing themselves, horribly depressed and objects of pornography. She now simply asserts is that what women want (and deserve) is equal opportunities.

Please explain.

Hey that was my question

I specified that men and women were not equal in the eyes of the Judaic Law. They did not have the same rights or even punishments, e.g. men were not stoned for adultery but women were. As **persons **in the sight of God men and women are equal.… Our Father in heaven transcends sex and human distinctions.

I’ve referred to most of this above. Unfortunately my internet connection died and then I had to re-write in a rush and so I missed the bit where I agreed with you that Judaic Law at the time was a little off. The example is a good one, for what purpose would a different punishment be required? Rather like why did we execute women by burning and men only by hanging up until the early 1800’s (in the UK)? Maybe it was thought that a woman committing a crime was more of a perversion of her nature than that of a man? I don’t know? Generally in Islam, men are punished more severely and this is due to do with their position of greater responsibility.
Your comments about equality are, may I say, very simplistic and very modern. We are all equal in humanity and in the sight of God, we all have the same opportunity to reach him, but this is only in one sense. Can the University Professor Emeritus really by considered equal on grounds of the intellect that of a person with a low IQ or whatever? Clearly no; God has put hierarchy in the universe. And the Thomistic hierarchy of being is far more striking to the one expounded by ibn al Arabi.

Without His mother the Redeemer would not have been born. Mary also shared His suffering and anguish on the Cross.

I wasn’t aware of this thank-you As I understand it though this ‘co’ is actually from Latin ‘cum’ which is a sense of ‘with’ and not ‘and’, i.e. Mary shared in Christ’s suffering not contributed to it. It was sub-ordinate and only Christ payed the ultimate debt, otherwise Mary would be Divine too, no? Which then does not really deny the significance of God’s plan to - as you have it - take a male human body does it?

 

[tonyrey]

You obviously believe man is - and should be - the dominant partner. On what do you base that belief?

The “natural” order of things is not necessarily the Will of God. Otherwise morality would be reduced to the law of the jungle! The tradition that men generally take authoritative positions overlooks the superior abilities of many women.

That said, this does not mean women should be barred opportunities simply because they are women because that is prejudice. Germain Greer’s latest works really hit the nail on the head; she says she takes everything from the Female Eunuch back because at least women weren’t killing themselves, horribly depressed and objects of pornography. She now simply asserts is that what women want (and deserve) is equal opportunities.

Which implies that there should be no more fundamental difference in their status in society.

I specified that men and women were not equal in the eyes of the Judaic Law. They did not have the same rights or even punishments, e.g. men were not stoned for adultery but women were. As **persons **

in the sight of God men and women are equal.… Our Father in heaven transcends sex and human distinctions. I’ve referred to most of this above. Unfortunately my internet connection died and then I had to re-write in a rush and so I missed the bit where I agreed with you that Judaic Law at the time was a little off. The example is a good one, for what purpose would a different punishment be required? Rather like why did we execute women by burning and men only by hanging up until the early 1800’s (in the UK)? Maybe it was thought that a woman committing a crime was more of a perversion of her nature than that of a man? I don’t know? Generally in Islam, men are punished more severely and this is due to do with their position of greater responsibility.Your comments about equality are, may I say, very simplistic and very modern. We are all equal in humanity and in the sight of God, we all have the same opportunity to reach him, but this is only in one sense. Can the University Professor Emeritus really by considered equal on grounds of the intellect that of a person with a low IQ or whatever? Clearly no; God has put hierarchy in the universe. And the Thomistic hierarchy of being is far more striking to the one expounded by ibn al Arabi.

So you believe women are lower than men in the hierarchy?

Without His mother the Redeemer would not have been born. Mary also shared His suffering and anguish on the Cross.
I wasn’t aware of this thank-you As I understand it though this ‘co’ is actually from Latin ‘cum’ which is a sense of ‘with’ and not ‘and’, i.e. Mary shared in Christ’s suffering not contributed to it. It was sub-ordinate and only Christ payed the ultimate debt, otherwise Mary would be Divine too, no? Which then does not really deny the significance of God’s plan to - as you have it - take a male human body does it?

Only Christ paid the ultimate price but Mary played an essential part in our redemption. She could have refused to say “Let it be done according to Your word”. Like her Son she did not yield to the temptation to take the easy way out.

The purpose of becoming a human being was to identify Himself totally with us and share our joys and sorrows, temptations and triumphs so that we can identify ourselves with Him, follow our way of the Cross and share His life in heaven. The abstract concept of God in heaven is far more difficult to grasp than a loving Father who sends His Son into the world as a person we can follow through the valley of death to the joy of the Resurrection.

 

[tonyrey]

You obviously believe man is - and should be - the dominant partner. On what do you base that belief?

The “natural” order of things is not necessarily the Will of God. Otherwise morality would be reduced to the law of the jungle! The tradition that men generally take authoritative positions overlooks the superior abilities of many women.

That said, this does not mean women should be barred opportunities simply because they are women because that is prejudice. Germain Greer’s latest works really hit the nail on the head; she says she takes everything from the Female Eunuch back because at least women weren’t killing themselves, horribly depressed and objects of pornography. She now simply asserts is that what women want (and deserve) is equal opportunities.

Which implies that there should be no more fundamental difference in their status in society.

I specified that men and women were not equal in the eyes of the Judaic Law. They did not have the same rights or even punishments, e.g. men were not stoned for adultery but women were. As **persons **

in the sight of God men and women are equal.… Our Father in heaven transcends sex and human distinctions. I’ve referred to most of this above. Unfortunately my internet connection died and then I had to re-write in a rush and so I missed the bit where I agreed with you that Judaic Law at the time was a little off. The example is a good one, for what purpose would a different punishment be required? Rather like why did we execute women by burning and men only by hanging up until the early 1800’s (in the UK)? Maybe it was thought that a woman committing a crime was more of a perversion of her nature than that of a man? I don’t know? Generally in Islam, men are punished more severely and this is due to do with their position of greater responsibility.Your comments about equality are, may I say, very simplistic and very modern. We are all equal in humanity and in the sight of God, we all have the same opportunity to reach him, but this is only in one sense. Can the University Professor Emeritus really by considered equal on grounds of the intellect that of a person with a low IQ or whatever? Clearly no; God has put hierarchy in the universe. And the Thomistic hierarchy of being is far more striking to the one expounded by ibn al Arabi.

So you believe women are lower than men in the hierarchy?

Without His mother the Redeemer would not have been born. Mary also shared His suffering and anguish on the Cross.
I wasn’t aware of this thank-you As I understand it though this ‘co’ is actually from Latin ‘cum’ which is a sense of ‘with’ and not ‘and’, i.e. Mary shared in Christ’s suffering not contributed to it. It was sub-ordinate and only Christ payed the ultimate debt, otherwise Mary would be Divine too, no? Which then does not really deny the significance of God’s plan to - as you have it - take a male human body does it?

Only Christ paid the ultimate price but Mary played an essential part in our redemption. She could have refused to say “Let it be done according to Your word”. Like her Son she did not yield to the temptation to take the easy way out.

The purpose of becoming a human being was to identify Himself totally with us and share our joys and sorrows, temptations and triumphs so that we can identify ourselves with Him, follow our way of the Cross and share His life in heaven. The abstract concept of God in heaven is far more difficult to grasp than a loving Father who sends His Son into the world as a person we can follow through the valley of death to the joy of the Resurrection.

 

[Betterave]

True and thanks for the clarification, but my original point still stands

Thanks for the comments, I’ll respond more later. For now, on this point, I would say that I’m not sure your point does stand. You said: “Jesus as a man does not necessarily mean Jesus as God is also a man because there is a non mingling.”

Now as you say, God knows best. But as I understand it Jesus-as-God and Jesus-as-man are categories that could be useful for describing particular attributes of Jesus, some of which are in keeping with the divine nature, some with his human nature. When it comes to the question of who Jesus is, however, we simply say: Jesus is God and Jesus is man and there is only one Jesus, one person. Mary is the mother of the man Jesus, but we also call her the mother of God, because Jesus is God. Therefore she is the mother of a man who is God; therefore God is a man.

Now we believe that this person, Jesus, the son of God, the Word of God, created both human sexes in his image, but he eternally foresaw and predestined his plan of redemption, his plan for uniting humans to himself by letting them share in his knowledge and love, and that eternal plan - as Catholics understand it - obviously includes the part about him becoming human, and becoming human as a male, not a female - as well as everything else, such as honoring his mother by making her to be the preeminent figure of redeemed humanity, complementary to himself as the preeminent figure of (as well as the fullness of being of) God HIMself. Neither man nor woman is neglected or denigrated in God’s plan, but they are differentiated, and certainly God knows best why it eternally is, was, and ever shall be more appropriate for God’s nature to be/to have been joined to human nature as a male, rather than as a female.

 

[Betterave]

Well the truth is I think we are both on occasion guilty of a certain amount of arrogance. I am hardly without sin. I think though that you have shown a tendency to be unnecessarily insulting in many of your posts. Unless of course you think is a banality is a compliment. And then when people respond to your insulting remarks by additionally claiming a lack of evidence in the reply. But in fact the insult and arrogance do not really require proof. All one has to do is read.

A quick comment for now, mcteague: Thank you for admitting to at least a certain amount of arrogance. Your arrogance was obvious, but many people would nonetheless arrogantly(!) refuse to admit it existed, so this is to your credit.

As for your claim that I insulted you, that is a false claim (and an arrogant one! ). Let me submit that pointing out that your statement is banal and fails to address any points of fact is perfectly legitimate, and this is so whether you want to call our exchange a conversation or a debate. (Unless you think that conversations are banal by definition, in which case: see ya! - not interested.)

Also please note that it is not arrogant to call someone arrogant, but it is arrogant to ignore what someone says, ignore the points of fact they raise, and to refer to the kind of obvious sociological rationalizations of your position which you mentioned, as if the OP is just obviously simply a rash and ignorant youth, to whom such wise considerations have surely never occurred; …then you talked about how she could be swatted like a fly by her prof, and strongly imply that she shouldn’t be so presumptuous as to disagree with him (although, again, you completely begged the question when it comes to addressing any points of fact), because he is the might fly-swatter or whatever, etc., etc.

In short, it’s about context. Banal (and false) claims arise when you ignore context. And that, I maintain, is what you have done here, throughout and in particular in the statement I have quoted above. For example: “But in fact the insult and arrogance do not really require proof. All one has to do is read” - that is a completely banal and false claim. In fact, with this statement you seem to quite possibly arrogantly insult and dismiss me, while at the same time absolving yourself from any responsibility to prove your claims. Can you see that? So obviously I could say the exact same thing to you - can you see that?? - and then where would we be? Would that be “having a conversation,” according to you??

 

[veritas82]

So you believe women are lower than men in the hierarchy?

No! As is obvious from my post. Is this a genuine misunderstanding or are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?
I think you need to clearly define gender. By the way just because you believe that does not mean the Church does.
Read the entry entitled women from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“The fact that there is no sexually neutral human being has, however, a second consequence. The sexual character can be separated from the human being as something secondary only in thought, not in actuality. The word “person” belongs neither to the soul nor to the body alone; it is rather, that the soul informing the body constitutes the full conception of the human personality only in its union with the body. It is in no way, therefore, permissible to limit differences only to the primary and secondary peculiarities of the body. On the contrary, the indisputable results of anatomical, physiological and psychological research show a difference so far-reaching between man and woman that the following is established as a scientific result: the feminine personality assumes the complete human nature in a different manner from the masculine. According to the intention of the Creator, therefore, the manifestation of human nature in women necessarily differs from its manifestation in man; the social spheres of interests and callings of the sexes are unlike. These distinctions can be diminished or increased by education and custom but cannot be completely annulled. Just as it is not permissible to take one sex as the standard of the other, so from the social point of view it is not allowable to confuse the vocational activities of both. The most manly man and the most feminine woman are the most perfect types of their sexes.”
Its a very good article

 

[veritas82]

Thanks for the comments, I’ll respond more later. For now, on this point, I would say that I’m not sure your point does stand. You said: “Jesus as a man does not necessarily mean Jesus as God is also a man because there is a non mingling.”

Now as you say, God knows best. But as I understand it Jesus-as-God and Jesus-as-man are categories that could be useful for describing particular attributes of Jesus, some of which are in keeping with the divine nature, some with his human nature. When it comes to the question of who Jesus is, however, we simply say: Jesus is God and Jesus is man and there is only one Jesus, one person. Mary is the mother of the man Jesus, but we also call her the mother of God, because Jesus is God. Therefore she is the mother of a man who is God; therefore God is a man.

Now we believe that this person, Jesus, the son of God, the Word of God, created both human sexes in his image, but he eternally foresaw and predestined his plan of redemption, his plan for uniting humans to himself by letting them share in his knowledge and love, and that eternal plan - as Catholics understand it - obviously includes the part about him becoming human, and becoming human as a male, not a female - as well as everything else, such as honoring his mother by making her to be the preeminent figure of redeemed humanity, complementary to himself as the preeminent figure of (as well as the fullness of being of) God HIMself. Neither man nor woman is neglected or denigrated in God’s plan, but they are differentiated, and certainly God knows best why it eternally is, was, and ever shall be more appropriate for God’s nature to be/to have been joined to human nature as a male, rather than as a female.

Thanks for this I must confess that I’m now getting a little confused. My original point was not the one cited, but ‘Surely their is agreement that ‘He’ or more specifically ‘Our Father’ does not refer to a man in the sky? In Islam or Judaism, such thinking would send you out of the religion quicker than you could say Jehovah! Whilst such a belief may be less heretical given the person of Christ, it surely is still a false belief because he is viewed as fully man and fully God; male body but God’s soul, right? So God even in this belief is clearly no a man in any literal sense, agreed?’ You’ve corrected a bit but I suppose my main point was God in the - as you have it - mode of being ‘Son’ as a human male does not necessitate God as masculine. I think Aquinas thought the perfection of humanness was masculinity and therefore that women were deficient, hence: “Femina est mas occasionatus”. Although the Church - as I understand it - does not agree with this, is there a suggestion that God is then fundamentally more masculine? My argument that God is more fundamentally is feminine, probably is not true if we think of Love as being the only genderless attribute. Anyway, we;ve entered the cloud of unknowing

 

[tonyrey]

So you believe women are lower than men in the hierarchy?

In the context of the masculinity of God you stated:

Your comments about equality are, may I say, very simplistic and very modern. We are all equal in humanity and in the sight of God, we all have the same opportunity to reach him, but this is only in one sense. Can the University Professor Emeritus really by considered equal on grounds of the intellect that of a person with a low IQ or whatever? Clearly no; God has put hierarchy in the universe. And the Thomistic hierarchy of being is far more striking to the one expounded by ibn al Arabi.

This passage seems to suggest that women are lower in the hierarchy, a view that is supported by the dominance of men in your religion. If I am mistaken you need to clarify what you mean… You have misinterpreted me if you think I believe women are lower than men.

BTW The Thomistic hierarchy of being is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

 

[veritas82]

This passage seems to suggest that women are lower in the hierarchy, a view that is supported by the dominance of men in your religion. If I am mistaken you need to clarify what you mean… You have misinterpreted me if you think I believe women are lower than men.

No! How? Since by virtue of intellect (given in the example) there is inevitably hierarchy of intellect and to assume otherwise is false. Einstein as mathematician is superior to my wife, my wife is a superior mathematician to me and so on ad infinitum. As a human being we are all equal, by the fact our essence is humanity, hence why we’re equal in the sight of God. I have never suggested that you view women as lower, but I have suggested you have peculiar modern ideas, like viewing mean and women as the same manifestation of humanity just with different fittings
Men dominate women in my religion, really? How? What has my religion got to do with what I said? If you are interpreting my words with a pre-conceived idea then this is called prejudice.

BTW The Thomistic hierarchy of being is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

OK, so what replaces it? Doesn’t really add anything to the argument does it? The whole Church structure is a hierarchy, so are you really saying there is none and that there is total equality in every conceivable way? HH Pope Benedict XVI is the same as you? This is the modern epidemic of the democratic model hence why so many of you guys ‘correct’ His Holiness!?! The hierarchy of being has had serious currency in Catholic history and so if it really is that wayward and in total contradiction to the modern denial of the intelligible concepts of masculinity and femininity that you seem so willing to class as a Church teaching then St Aquinas must surely now be a heretic? I think you’re very confused… and you haven’t answered one question at all, not one!
I really can’t understand you on this Do you think I’m leading you into some kind of trap because I’m Muslim? Paranoia; another epidemic of the modern world!

 

[tonyrey]

No! How? Since by virtue of intellect (given in the example) there is inevitably hierarchy of intellect and to assume otherwise is false. Einstein as mathematician is superior to my wife, my wife is a superior mathematician to me and so on ad infinitum. As a human being we are all equal, by the fact our essence is humanity, hence why we’re equal in the sight of God. I have never suggested that you view women as lower, but I have suggested you have peculiar modern ideas, like viewing men and women as the same manifestation of humanity just with different fittings
Men dominate women in my religion, really? How? What has my religion got to do with what I said? If you are interpreting my words with a pre-conceived idea then this is called prejudice.
OK, so what replaces it? Doesn’t really add anything to the argument does it? The whole Church structure is a hierarchy, so are you really saying there is none and that there is total equality in every conceivable way? HH Pope Benedict XVI is the same as you? This is the modern epidemic of the democratic model hence why so many of you guys ‘correct’ His Holiness!?! The hierarchy of being has had serious currency in Catholic history and so if it really is that wayward and in total contradiction to the modern denial of the intelligible concepts of masculinity and femininity that you seem so willing to class as a Church teaching then St Aquinas must surely now be a heretic? I think you’re very confused… and you haven’t answered one question at all, not one!
I really can’t understand you on this Do you think I’m leading you into some kind of trap because I’m Muslim? Paranoia; another epidemic of the modern world!

 

[veritas82]

I’m afraid it is your posts that have succeeded in confusing me about what you do believe. I lived in a Muslim country for two years, have good Muslim friends and observed that educated women were at a serious disadvantage in pursuing a career both in Algeria and Pakistan - and probably elsewhere. But I prefer not to pursue this subject because it would lead to ill feeling on your part. It is better to end with the thought that we have far more in common than with materialists and atheists.

Forgive me; my last post - re reading it - did sound a bit like a rant. It wasn’t really meant to, although we do not seem to be understanding each other. If nothing else I do agree with the last half of your last sentence; we do share more than many other belief systems
To be honest my rant was probably a bit reactionary. I’ve tried numerous times to have productive conversations with Catholics and unfortunately they seem to collapse into digs about the state of the Muslim World. There is no question it is in its worst position in history; we’re going through a reformation at the moment and I’m sure you can empathise as a Catholic that its not a good time and one of turmoil - being proportionately Europe’s bloodiest period. There are better examples of Islam than Pakistan (I’ve never understood them) and Algeria, there are worse! In the UK we’re paid based on education and experience, in Saudi Arabia people are paid relative to race and nationality; white Americans being paid the most, black Africans being paid the least ! Of course its not all gloom out there; women are often a lot more educated than here (Europe), Iraq was the World’s most literate country until the first Gulf war. Jordan has the lowest incidents of suicide and crime in the World.
Of course practice is not the same as theory, people do not always do what they ‘ought’ to do. In the same way that the Inquisition in practice was not as was intended. Looking at specific examples will not tell you about the whole necessarily, so the Irish Catholic who sleeps around and doesn’t wear a condom because the Church doesn’t agree is not a good example of Humanae Vitae or a Catholic.
At present both our faiths have to deal with the modern World - you guys have had a bit more practice and are doing a better job - which we struggle with. I believe that along with other more Orthodox Christian, Muslim and Jewish groupings we can work together to improve the negative side of modernity because we have similar World views.
The article I suggested from the Catholic Encyclopedia seems really good and one in which Muslims are basically in agreement. It seems that both our faiths do not like this modern idea that woman is simply a man with breasts etc We seem to agree that men and women are of equal status but God had intended different roles for them in society. As you have mentioned. there were more strong female characters in the past (very much the same in Islam) and which of late is sadly forgotten, so we can take a reminder from the modern World to give women equal opportunities.
Anyway my friend, I hope this has been useful to you
Pax vobiscum

 

[veritas82]

I think the OP’s question has been well and truly answered
The discussion may now have moved to**: ‘is there something more fundamentally masculine about the Divine?’** Anyone help answer that?

 

[RobbyS]

I am not ignoring the statements of Jesus, but you are ignoring the teaching of the Church. As I pointed out in my post, it is the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church that God is neither male nor female (and you agree with that). My post also demonstrates that it is the clear and consistent teaching of the Church that God is also both Father and Mother (which you apparenlty deny). There is nothing wrong with referring to God as either gender. That is not what I am saying, that is what the Church teaches.

I disagree that “there is nothing wrong with referring to God as either gender,” because to do so is to concede too much to the Zeitgeist. To a radical feminism whose god is power. Paradoxically, to refuse to use the pronoun “He” to the Father is to imply that
divinity itself has like human nature," feminine" and " masculine" sides. The aiconic teachings of the Bible aims to correct that false notion of the divine.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m afraid it is your posts that have succeeded in confusing me about what you do believe. I lived in a Muslim country for two years, have good Muslim friends and observed that educated women were at a serious disadvantage in pursuing a career both in Algeria and Pakistan - and probably elsewhere. But I prefer not to pursue this subject because it would lead to ill feeling on your part. It is better to end with the thought that we have far more in common than with materialists and atheists.

Forgive me; my last post - re reading it - did sound a bit like a rant. It wasn’t really meant to, although we do not seem to be understanding each other. If nothing else I do agree with the last half of your last sentence; we do share more than many other belief systems
To be honest my rant was probably a bit reactionary. I’ve tried numerous times to have productive conversations with Catholics and unfortunately they seem to collapse into digs about the state of the Muslim World. There is no question it is in its worst position in history; we’re going through a reformation at the moment and I’m sure you can empathise as a Catholic that its not a good time and one of turmoil - being proportionately Europe’s bloodiest period. There are better examples of Islam than Pakistan (I’ve never understood them) and Algeria, there are worse! In the UK we’re paid based on education and experience, in Saudi Arabia people are paid relative to race and nationality; white Americans being paid the most, black Africans being paid the least ! Of course its not all gloom out there; women are often a lot more educated than here (Europe), Iraq was the World’s most literate country until the first Gulf war. Jordan has the lowest incidents of suicide and crime in the World.
Of course practice is not the same as theory, people do not always do what they ‘ought’ to do. In the same way that the Inquisition in practice was not as was intended. Looking at specific examples will not tell you about the whole necessarily, so the Irish Catholic who sleeps around and doesn’t wear a condom because the Church doesn’t agree is not a good example of Humanae Vitae or a Catholic.
At present both our faiths have to deal with the modern World - you guys have had a bit more practice and are doing a better job - which we struggle with. I believe that along with other more Orthodox Christian, Muslim and Jewish groupings we can work together to improve the negative side of modernity because we have similar World views.
The article I suggested from the Catholic Encyclopedia seems really good and one in which Muslims are basically in agreement. It seems that both our faiths do not like this modern idea that woman is simply a man with breasts etc We seem to agree that men and women are of equal status but God had intended different roles for them in society. As you have mentioned. there were more strong female characters in the past (very much the same in Islam) and which of late is sadly forgotten, so we can take a reminder from the modern World to give women equal opportunities.
Anyway my friend, I hope this has been useful to you
Pax vobiscum
There is nothing to forgive! There is bound to be some misunderstanding when two persons approach the subject from different viewpoints and backgrounds. The sexes certainly have different roles but they are often more complicated than they were in the past, as when the mother goes out to work.

For Muslims the Creator transcends all worldly considerations, including the biological, psychological and ontological aspects of sexuality. On that and many other issues we are in total agreement. You are in my prayers…

 

[veritas82]

There is nothing to forgive! There is bound to be some misunderstanding when two persons approach the subject from different viewpoints and backgrounds. The sexes certainly have different roles but they are often more complicated than they were in the past, as when the mother goes out to work.

For Muslims the Creator transcends all worldly considerations, including the biological, psychological and ontological aspects of sexuality. On that and many other issues we are in total agreement. You are in my prayers…

These forums are a bit of a synthetic setup; no one would launch into a debate on beliefs etc without being familiar with the other person. Certainly very easy to misunderstand, but tis is no problem if by accident
There is agreement then, that men and women are of equal status, but different… if that makes sense?
Should you read the books of kalam (theology) then you gets the sense of Gods transcendence. It focuses on what God is not, namely creation. Muslims certainly believe that God’s Essence (what He is in Himself) is unknowable and thus could not be thought in any human terms at all, gender or otherwise. I’m sure this would be something like God in the mode of The Father for you?
However if you read the books of tasawwuf (mysticism) then you get the sense of God’s immanence. It focuses on what God is, we can say He’s Powerful, Loving etc. We view God as both Immanent and transcendent; transcendent in an absolute way but immanent contingently. The universe is seen as a manifestation of God’s attributes so that mankind experiences God at every moment of every second. There is no relationship between man and God when we look at His Essence, that is beyond any comparison, but His position of Divinity does make a relationship; He is All Powerful we have less power. This relationship is intelligible only i.e. we can understand it, but it does not actually exist in the sense of a thing having a body. Immanence for you would be God in the mode of The Son?
From a perspective of God’s Immanence and His Attributes, we talk about the Jalal (Majestic) attributes and the Jamal (Beautiful) attributes. The jalal is classically masculine in character because it is active, like power (not that it is a man) and the jamal is classically feminine because it is passive, like mercy (not that it is a woman). From a Muslim’s perspective God has said His Mercy is over His Wrath and therefore beauty is something more fundamental to the Divine; ‘I am Beautiful and I love Beauty.’ Since beauty is something classically feminine then we can say God’s attributes are more fundamentally feminine - not that He is a woman or any such like, its all metaphorical.
In this sense I was wondering if the Catholic understanding of God is more masculine? Obviously God transcends gender, but we are talking in an attribute/immanent way.