HELP! Defending Masculinity of God with stupid Liberal Professor!

[Big_Dummy]

Likely, he has quoted Genesis 1:27 “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” to make his case.

Throw him a bone and simply point, it says male and female.

Then you can point out in the NT male language, like “Father”, “Son”

and in the OT,

God a Man of War

“The Lord is a man of war,” Exodus 15:3

The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

“The God of the armies of Israel,“ 1 Samuel 17:45

Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. .“The Lord of Hosts,” Isaiah 47:4

As for our redeemer, the LORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel.

See All…
learnthebible.org/god-a-man-of-war.html

Also, you may want to look into a book called Tactics by Koukl
He discusses how to skin a professor as a student.

google.com/search?hl=en&biw=999&bih=520&rlz=1R2ADBF_en&q=tactics+koukl+college+student&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

google.com/search?hl=en&biw=999&bih=520&rlz=1R2ADBF_en&q=use+socratic+method+with+professor+attacking+your+%22christian+faith%22+apologetics&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

books.google.com/books?id=KjZpIl__i5EC&dq=use+socratic+method+with+professor+attacking+your+%22christian+faith%22+apologetics&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=omx9Tbg8ht2sAbqj9ZEG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCw#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It kinda always bothered me then they “got rid of” the Feast of the Circumcision. There was this “debate” with liberals about the sexuality of Jesus and all that “stuff”, so by ridding us of the Feast of the Circumcision, it opened the way for further debate.

My friend said it was because kids in some countries would be named after the saint’s day they were born and they didn’t want any more kids named “Circumcision Gomez”.

**

 

[OSU]

To claim that God is predominantly female is to conclude that God is reactive, as opposed to proactive. That is a fundamental problem.

And, as others have said, Jesus Christ repeatedly referred to God as Father.

What is the most famous prayer of Christianity that Jesus gave to us? “Our Father”.

The argument is ridiculous and the professor is wrong. I don’t care if he has 10 degrees. He is wrong.

Unfortunately you will run into many people with an agenda in college- ofttimes that agenda has nothing to do with Church teaching and everything to do with a new social movement, like this feminist BS you are seeing…

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Probably already posted here … I didn’t check … but Abba is not “Father”. Abba = Daddy

 

[tonyrey]

To claim that God is predominantly female is to conclude that God is reactive, as opposed to proactive. That is a fundamental problem.

And, as others have said, Jesus Christ repeatedly referred to God as Father.

What is the most famous prayer of Christianity that Jesus gave to us? “Our Father”.

The argument is ridiculous and the professor is wrong. I don’t care if he has 10 degrees. He is wrong.

Unfortunately you will run into many people with an agenda in college- ofttimes that agenda has nothing to do with Church teaching and everything to do with a new social movement, like this feminist BS you are seeing…

A warm welcome to the forum! I don’t think the ladies will be impressed with your implication that they are not proactive.

 

[tonyrey]

Probably already posted here … I didn’t check … but Abba is not “Father”. Abba = Daddy

Which signifies an even closer relationship!

 

[allyl]

Ok, so currently I reading through material to be discussed at a class later this week in which the author says that Masculinity conquered “The Great Mother” and replaced it with a masculine God and now we must reclaim feminine spirituality.

Ok, at this PATHETIC school I am at, all if not most of the professor believe in calling God “she” and using he and she interchangeably. I have talked to a priest, a seminarian, and TWO people with master in theology about this so I now perfectly well why this is just a load of ****. But I am already gearing up to openly debate my professor in class about this because I am DONE sitting there and letting him flat out lie about what our church teaches.

The thing is, every time I get fired about and ready to debate him (there is one in particular at my “Catholic” school is ridiculously liberal and for lack of a better word, just stupid) I just remember he has a doctorate in theology and makes his living off of speaking and I back down. But this time I don’t want to do that.

Can anyone please give me some good arguments about this? And sources to read up on? Prayers for the courage to debate him in front of my peers and other professors (the class is taught by multiple professor so I may end up not just having to fight with one unfortunately.)

Here is what Im thinking about saying:
One, I understand that we will never be able to fully understand God
Two: Our reverence of Mary keeps feminine spirituality well alive
Three: No where is this dumb ideal in the catechism

Thats about all I got… I need a lot of help!!!

The CCC teaches us that God has no gender. ‘He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes.’

I’d just like to add to all those crying about God being a ‘father’ say if tomorrow you found out that God was female, would you lose your faith? No, or at least I would hope not. Thus, it doesn’t matter. Faith is not to be based on petty things like this, it should transcend this.

 

[tonyrey]

The CCC teaches us that God has no gender. ‘He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes.’

I’d just like to add to all those crying about God being a ‘father’ say if tomorrow you found out that God was female, would you lose your faith? No, or at least I would hope not. Thus, it doesn’t matter. Faith is not to be based on petty things like this, it should transcend this.

Bravo! It may well be that this undue concern is the unconscious result of our sex-dominated society…

A warm welcome to the forum!

 

[TMC]

+Below is the definitive statement from the Vatican clearly delineated for Catholics concerning this grave disordered error/heresy of attempting to redefine the masculine gender of our Holy Triune God in which the** Holy See** clearly denounces this presumptious sin . . . and the Holy See has been very actively fighting against this virulent widespread gross heresy for years . . .

CDF NORMS FOR THE TRANSLATION OF BIBLICAL TEXTS FOR USE IN THE LITURGY

This is about the translation of Scripture and about the language used in the liturgy, which is not what is being discussed here. I don’t think anyone on this thread is advocating changing the language of the liturgy or changing Scripture. The question is whether there is something inappropriate in referring to God in the feminine in private prayer, in discussions, etc. I say that the Church says God is neither masculine nor feminine, and the Church does not teach it is wrong to refer to God in the feminine. I agree that the Church does not allow the language of Scripture or of the Mass to be changed, but that is an entirely different topic.
​

​

 

[Betterave]

I suppose as generalizations are almost by definition banal, I will accept your criticism.

No; generalizations are not almost by definition banal.

It bothers be a little that no one here rebukes the OP for her arrogance and rudeness. It is apparently acceptable as long as one is criticizing Liberals, or anyone holding a view different than traditional Catholic thought. No one here would tolerate a post like that if it was directed at position broadly held here

The OP is upset and legitimately so. Why do you accuse her of arrogance and rudeness? (The word ‘hypocrisy’ springs to mind here.)

 

[Betterave]

I need a little reality check. Does anyone reading this thread really believe that at a Catholic college there is a theology professor teaching that the foundation belief of Christianity is something about the great mother? This certainly sounds like a comparative theology class.

No, but another reality check: the OP never made the claim here, which you imply that she made.

Do people really think it is some terrible heresy to consider that if God exists “he” would have qualities beyond what can be described in the gender terminology we are accustomed to.

No one really thinks that or has suggested it - have they??

Is really that important that if we think of God, we only think of “him” with a penis?

That statement just shows that you’re really not paying attention to what others are saying here. Very silly, mcteague. (Possibly bordering on ‘rude and arrogant’…)

 

[Betterave]

This is about the translation of Scripture and about the language used in the liturgy, which is not what is being discussed here. I don’t think anyone on this thread is advocating changing the language of the liturgy or changing Scripture. The question is whether there is something inappropriate in referring to God in the feminine in private prayer, in discussions, etc. I say that the Church says God is neither masculine nor feminine, and the Church does not teach it is wrong to refer to God in the feminine. I agree that the Church does not allow the language of Scripture or of the Mass to be changed, but that is an entirely different topic.

But there clearly is something inappropriate about what you are suggesting. The scriptures and the liturgy are not supposed to be museum pieces that have no normative function in the ‘other’ parts of our lives. When Jesus taught us to call God “our Father,” he didn’t add, “or whatever else you’d like to call Him/Her.” Your suggestion makes a mockery of Jesus’ instructions to us. It implies that he *did *add this kind of qualifying clause, or that the Church has. But that is not the case.

 

[Betterave]

The CCC teaches us that God has no gender. ‘He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes.’

I’d just like to add to all those crying about God being a ‘father’ say if tomorrow you found out that God was female, would you lose your faith? No, or at least I would hope not. Thus, it doesn’t matter. Faith is not to be based on petty things like this, it should transcend this.

Of course we would lose our faith if tomorrow we found out that God was female! (At least those of us who are currently Catholics would!)

 

[allyl]

Of course we would lose our faith if tomorrow we found out that God was female! (At least those of us who are currently Catholics would!)

I hope you’re joking, I sincerely hope you are.

 

[mcteague]

No, but another reality check: the OP never made the claim here, which you imply that she made.

No one really thinks that or has suggested it - have they??

That statement just shows that you’re really not paying attention to what others are saying here. Very silly, mcteague. (Possibly bordering on ‘rude and arrogant’…)

Perhaps bordering on vulgar, but not arrogant. The OP really was not specific enough to really be sure what her claim is. I think some but not all have suggested that.

My criticism of the OP is in calling something she does not agree with stupid. We sometimes make the mistake when listening to young people of assuming that their knowledge is greater than it actually is. Some of the primary driving forces for youth are identity and identification. There is often a passionate defense of what one is, and what one believes.
This is true regardless of whether they identify themselves as Catholic, liberal, pagan, Marxist, conservative, or anything else. The problem for me is that often when we hear statements in agreement with positions or ideologies we ourselves identify with, we assume a level of knowledge and understanding that may not actually exist. I have known many people who identify themselves as Marxists, for example, because they read and liked the manifesto. But they would be completely unable to discuss historical materialism, or the general theory of capitalist accumulation. Just as I have met many people who define themselves as Christian or Catholic simply because they like Jesus. Should we really assume that people understand the subject because their statements conform in someway to our own beliefs. Of course this can be equally true regardless of the age of the speaker. But in my experience it is very often especially true in regard to statements made by young people. And it certainly true, in my experience that we give them more latitude because we are so impressed by their passion and enthusiasm. Many people here will overlook equating liberal with stupid because this is often quite a reactionary site

Rather than the closed off way of defending ones identity by calling positions and interpretations different than our own stupid, I would recommend a more open and less antagonistic approach to learning. Listening to what is being said. Rather than to why it is wrong, or contrary to our ideas. There is entirely to much listening like a lawyer in the world ( listening to argue) rather than simply listening to actually listen or learn.

This is of course only my banal, hypocritical, and arrogant opinion.

 

[Jesus_123]

+The Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church holds Sacred :bible1: Scripture as the holy and infallible Word of God. The incredibly . . . strange. . . idea that Sacred Scripture is just a bunch of words that can be thrown out . . . arbitrarily changed at will . . . paid no attention to . . . believed or not believed. . . and not believing that Scripture is absolutely necessary for a life to be lived close to our Wonderful Beloved Lord ** and for living a righteous holy life in accordance with our God’s Holy Will is . . . grave error . . . and is an utterly non-Christian/non-Catholic point of view . . .

:bible1:
“For there shall be a time,
when they will not endure sound doctrine;
but,
according to their own desires,
they will heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears:”
2 Timothy 4:3

Woe unto them
that call evil good, and good evil;
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20

"To be ignorant of :bible1: Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ

."*

• St. Jerome*

**Catholic Answer’s Forum apologist Peggy Frye ** speaks very precisely re FALSE non-Catholic doctrine below . . .

**. . . :coffeeread: . . . **

**Re:
Is it true that Catholics are free to choose,
with serious consideration,
which Church teachings to obey? **

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**To protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors: **
:compcoff:
**Motu proprio **
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_30061998_ad-tuendam-fidem_en.html

---

Catholics are NOT free
to “choose which teachings to obey”…

The Code of Canon Law no 750 clearly states:

Can. 750

§1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the of

:bible1:
Word of God,

written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid ANY doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

**§2. **Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church. …

“The teaching Church does not invent her doctrines; she is a witness, a custodian, an interpreter, a transmitter. As regards the truths of Christian marriage, she can be called conservative, uncompromising. To those who would urge her to make her faith easier, more in keeping with the tastes of the changing mentality of the times, she answers with the apostles, WE CANNOT.” (Acts. 4:20):compcoff:
Dignitatis Humanae
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html:bible1:
Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words **
shall NOT pass away."
Matthew 24:35​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[TMC]

+The Apostolic Holy Roman Catholic Church holds Sacred :bible1: Scripture as the holy and infallible Word of God.

Your increasingly colorful posts are ignoring the fact that no one is suggesting that a single word of Scripture be changed. The issue is whether it is appropriate to refer to God in the feminine in private prayer and discussions, not whether it is OK to change Scripture.

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps bordering on vulgar, but not arrogant. The OP really was not specific enough to really be sure what her claim is. I think some but not all have suggested that.

My criticism of the OP is in calling something she does not agree with stupid. We sometimes make the mistake when listening to young people of assuming that their knowledge is greater than it actually is. Some of the primary driving forces for youth are identity and identification. There is often a passionate defense of what one is, and what one believes.
This is true regardless of whether they identify themselves as Catholic, liberal, pagan, Marxist, conservative, or anything else. The problem for me is that often when we hear statements in agreement with positions or ideologies we ourselves identify with, we assume a level of knowledge and understanding that may not actually exist. I have known many people who identify themselves as Marxists, for example, because they read and liked the manifesto. But they would be completely unable to discuss historical materialism, or the general theory of capitalist accumulation. Just as I have met many people who define themselves as Christian or Catholic simply because they like Jesus. Should we really assume that people understand the subject because their statements conform in someway to our own beliefs. Of course this can be equally true regardless of the age of the speaker. But in my experience it is very often especially true in regard to statements made by young people. And it certainly true, in my experience that we give them more latitude because we are so impressed by their passion and enthusiasm. Many people here will overlook equating liberal with stupid because this is often quite a reactionary site

Rather than the closed off way of defending ones identity by calling positions and interpretations different than our own stupid, I would recommend a more open and less antagonistic approach to learning. Listening to what is being said. Rather than to why it is wrong, or contrary to our ideas. There is entirely to much listening like a lawyer in the world ( listening to argue) rather than simply listening to actually listen or learn…

An excellent analysis! I would add that the excessive stress on feminism extended to the concept of God is the inevitable result of the subordination of women throughout much of the world from time immemorial.

Jesus became a man solely because He was born into a patriarchal society. We may find it repugnant to think He would have been a woman if it had been a matriarchal society but that is only an emotional reaction due to a habit of thought deeply ingrained from childhood. Yet we are right to call God our Father even though divinity transcends sexuality.The wisdom of Jesus is evident in His awareness of our need for concrete images as well as abstract concepts. “He Who Is” may be nearer to the truth but what could be closer to our experience of love, dedication and self-sacrifice than a mother or father, both of whom are equally precious?

 

[Jesus_123]

+If an individual holds the personal belief that **“God our Father” **is. . . should be . . . or can be addressed as . . . “god our mother” . . . in dissent and complete disregard of the presentation throughout Sacred Tradition and . . . infallible (without error) Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . of God in the masculine vernacular . . . this is an act in direct defiance of . . . and in willful opposition to . . . Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . the Church proclaimed . . . infallible . . . dogmas and doctrines . . . of the Magesterium of the Catholic Church and Sacred Tradition . . . which goes back over centuries upon centuries of Christianity . . . well over 2000 years . . . NOT to just the beginning of Christianity . . . but also reverberates throughout the Judaic era . . . as clearly revealed throughout the Old :bible1: Testament . . . such a personal belief in a “mother/her god” is . . . NOT . . . in accord with what our Holy Mother Catholic Church requires that Catholics assent to as an orthodox Catholic belief . . . rather it is a heresy/error . . . the Nicene Creed . . . which we profess each Sunday during the celebration of Holy Mass . . . which was posted earlier on this thread . . . in and of itself clearly refutes this mother/her-god heresy . . .

Also . . . Sacred :bible1: Scripture and certain other doctrines and dogmas are officially proclaimed by the Catholic Church as . . . infallible (without error) . . . there is a very odd fantasy that has been indulged throughout this thread . . . that somehow The Catechism of the Catholic Church is considered infallible by the Catholic Church . . . and it has been lifted up as an authority to set aside :bible1: Scripture and centuries held Traditional understandings and teachings . . . it is not . . . any more than **Canon Law **is considered infallible . . . and these bodies of work while very important have never been promoted among the faithful as such . . . they are both works of the Magesterium of our Church and are to greatly be respected as wonderful resources re the Church and the Faith . . . but both even as we speak have been edited, corrected and changed considerably . . . and the CCC even now is in its Second Edition . . .

Throughout this thread individuals have clung to a short very controversial and unexplained passage in the Catechism as if it were infallible . . . with all due respect . . .** it is not** . . . and the Church does not and never has presented it as such . . .

. . . :coffeeread: . . .
The Catechism of the Catholic Church

[First Edition]

**The Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC) **is the official text of the teachings of the Catholic Church. The new Catechism was first published[3] in 1994 — in French — and was then translated into many other languages.[4]

[Second Edition]

On August 15, 1997 — the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary — Pope John Paul II promulgated the Latin typical edition, with his apostolic letter, Laetamur Magnopere.[5] The Latin text, which became the official text of reference (editio typica),[6] amended the contents of the provisional French text at a few points.[7] As a result, the original translations into other languages (from the French) had to be amended and re-published as “second editions” (including English).[8]

- Wickipedia​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . blessed St. Jerome please pray for us+
. . . thank You Dear Lord+​

 

[OSU]

Jesus became a man solely because He was born into a patriarchal society.

Huh?