HELP! Defending Masculinity of God with stupid Liberal Professor!

[mcteague]

What do you mean by “narrow and literal”? Faithful? Uncontrived? Defensible? LOL! Your comments are again not making any interesting point, just expressing your arrogant attitude towards those you disagree with. Again, this is ironic in light of your earlier recommendations for open-mindedness.

You always make these ad hominem remarks which you mistakenly think are logic. You consistently are the pot calling the kettle black. Confusing your conceit for superior reason. There is nothing arrogant in my attitude.
There is I think an interesting question of how much an ideology like Christianity which has become institutionalized can allow itself to be influenced by outside ideas or ideas that came later historically, and still maintain the integrity of its identity. I would argue considerably more than many, not all and perhaps not you, would seem to be comfortable with.
In this discussion the question would be can Catholicism accept the use of some modern feminist language and still be Catholicism? That is not change the liturgy, but can people who choose to incorporate these ideas and in this case language still be considered included in what it to be Catholic. And if Catholicism as an ideology does allow this a broadening by the inclusion of newer ideas and language, what does that mean for what it is. Must it maintain absolute consistency with its original, or at least codified self, to be what it is. Or is that perhaps the potential seed of its own irrelevancy.

I realize that you might not find this an interesting question because you probably don’t understand what I am talking about. But it is actually a fundamental question for any ideology that exists beyond a fixed moment.

 

[InspiritCarol]

Why be male or female? He’s God. He could have been a hermaphrodite if he chose to be. He did not. Nor did he refer to God the “Parent”. He could have, he did not.

I pray for the people for whom “God as Father” is a barrier; and I don’t see why he can’t transcend that for them, but to reinvent God as mother based on some maternal qualities listed in the OT and knowing that God transcends gender in general; *does *cross the line. I mean, my husband can give the baby a bottle and change her diaper, but does that make him any less a man?

There is the other issue that “Goddess” is already used to refer to the “Earth Mother” and other Pagan incarnations of the “creator”. Those who would like to meld the diametrically opposed religions of Pagan and Christian in this manner need to examine the basic tenets of each. Before you pooh-pooh me and refer to your history books that all seem to claim that Catholicism and Paganism are already one in the same, I ask you to actually examine that claim. Look to other threads if you want to hash that out.

The bottom line is that to suddenly call God “Goddess” is akin to suddenly calling God “Ra” or “Zeus” or what have you. You may have a very clear intention, but to the rest of the world, it is not so clear.

 

[veritas82]

You are not the first member to think that their comment has been ignored for unfair reasons… The fact that your argument was complex may not have been in your favor, either.

Thanks

I think the Church’s instruction that traditional gender terms be maintained, and not deviated from, may reflect concern about possibly losing an important part of revelation which is not contained in less specific language.

Preservation of scripture is indeed an important point

I do think that you are onto something when you say that individuals may prefer to refer to God as He because they think it is becoming of His majesty…

 

[veritas82]

No, that is incorrect. We believe that Jesus had a human soul. He was one person, having two natures, united, but not mingled.

Oops sorry Thanks for the admonition Although it does make my point more striking; Jesus as a man does not necessarily mean Jesus as God - as you have it - is also a man because there is a non mingling.

It surely should be.

Maybe lack of deference is the modern pandemic? I’m always surprised how quickly people are to correct His Holiness… never been that confident

Sorry, I missed something maybe: where does this postulate come from?

Someone mentioned that classically masculinity is ‘giver’ and femininity is ‘receiver’. Male characteristics then are positive in that they add something, such as Power etc Female characteristics are negative (NB I’m not being derrogatory here at all!!!) in that they receive something like Mercy etc. Since you would say ‘God is Love’ (we’d say God is Loving) then it suggests that the Divine Essence (denoted by the use of ‘is’ i.e. His Being) is Love and Love is a characteristic of femininity thus one could say there is something more profoundly feminine about the Divine. So as Absolute Awe Inspiring Master God is He, but as our Beloved He is She, which would make sense given the use of the latter by Saints in moments of spiritual ecstasy.

God knows best

 

[veritas82]

Let me add that the soul is the form of the body, and just as Jesus’ body was male, so was his soul (the form of that body). It is an enormous presumption to assert that, were it not for the practical difficulties that would have been posed by his being a woman in the backwards patriarchal culture which he chose to become a part of, he could just as well have been a female.

Yes, sorry. It has been a while since I did Aquinas. The form and body are inextricably linked in this philosophy with no room for dualism: ‘because it is one and the same man who is conscious both that he understands and that he senses. But one cannot sense without a body, and therefore the body must be some part of man.’
I believe you are right; it would be presumptuous. The maleness of Christ is surely a lesson of Divine proportions, though a practicality is also apparent.
I do not believe a patriarchal outward society - as long as it is tempered with a matriarchal inner society - is in any way backward, this I think we’d agree would be the perfect one? Judea 33AD may have been backward in that it became too masculine (rather like more fundamentalist Muslim groupings today) and so Jesus redressed the balance and taught men how to love again and cherish women, in effect he taught them how to be feminine once more. Not that you believe he was just a teacher - maybe not the aim, but an objective

 

[mdgspencer]

I see that your professor takes the line that Christianity replaced a mother God with a masculine God. Probably convincing the professor by objecting to this in class would be a lost cause. The real reason I would do this myself in your situation is to keep your professor from gaining control of the mind of the other students, and imbuing them with an antti-Christian ideology… You should do a little research and see if you can find research that can put down this idea. From what I know of religion in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ, belief in a mother Goddess was not at all important (and maybe in fact there is no sign it even existed. if I am right.) Maybe you can google to some things or use your university databases.
Personally, I would be delighted if Christianity overcam a belief in a mother God, but naturally your professor is trying to put a bad slant on this, perhaps saying we should return to the old-time religion.

 

[tonyrey]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7657501#post7657501

I certainly did and agreed with much of it.

The “patriarchal society” angle is not viable. Jesus didn’t have a problem saying things which upset people. And many of the parallel cultures worshiped goddesses. It doesn’t fly.

Of course Jesus didn’t have a problem saying things which upset people but He was also realistic. He knew that to call God “our Mother” in a patriarchal society would have been extremely confusing and another reason for men to reject His teaching…

Although God has no gender, He is the initiator of love, just as men are.

I’m afraid that is a clear case of machismo. Men are usually the initiators of physical love but not love in the full sense of the term. Women have just as much free will as men…

Yes, we’re talking about a relationship here. I agree with you on that. But God is the masculine aspect in this relationship and our souls are the feminine aspect - even for males. That’s why even the male saints referred to their souls as “she.”

God obviously initiates the relationship but sexuality is irrelevant in a spiritual context for the simple reason that He created masculinity and femininity. That distinction did not exist for all eternity. Nowhere in the teaching of Jesus does He state or imply that men are made more in the likeness of God than women. The symbolism used by some saints is to describe Love and the beloved **without any anthopomorphic implication. **Even in the Old Testament the Song of Songs is an allegory for God’s love for the Children of Israel in spite of its apparent erotism.

I’m bowing out here now, my only interest in this discussion was to post the article which I thought the other posters might enjoy.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[tonyrey]

I see that your professor takes the line that Christianity replaced a mother God with a masculine God. Probably convincing the professor by objecting to this in class would be a lost cause. The real reason I would do this myself in your situation is to keep your professor from gaining control of the mind of the other students, and imbuing them with an antti-Christian ideology… You should do a little research and see if you can find research that can put down this idea. From what I know of religion in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ, belief in a mother Goddess was not at all important (and maybe in fact there is no sign it even existed. if I am right.) Maybe you can google to some things or use your university databases.
Personally, I would be delighted if Christianity overcam a belief in a mother God, but naturally your professor is trying to put a bad slant on this, perhaps saying we should return to the old-time religion.

It’s a question of going from one extreme to the other! God created and transcends sexuality…

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Precisely! God is not literally our Father but our Creator.

In what way is God masculine? What are the** spiritual **qualities of masculinity?

By Creator, Father, and other masculine pronouns, this implies transcendence and are necessary to accurately describe for us the Nature of God. As a human father is transcendent to the production of a child in that he need not even be near the vicinity of the mother, who is immanent to the child, at the moment the child is created by the prior action of the two parents, God our Father is indicating His utter transcendence to His Creation. These are the spiritual qualities of masculinity as drawn from the higher, God’s Nature, to the lower, masculinity in creation, and conveyed through God’s revelation to us in ways we can understand, as in “Our Father” being given to us directly by God Himself.

God as Father becomes analogous rather than merely metaphorical. As a human father is the “source” or “principle” of his offspring (in a way that the mother, receiving the father and his procreative activity within herself, is not), so God is the “source” or “principle” of creation. In that sense, God is truly Father, not merely metaphorically so.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, sorry. It has been a while since I did Aquinas. The form and body are inextricably linked in this philosophy with no room for dualism: ‘because it is one and the same man who is conscious both that he understands and that he senses. But one cannot sense without a body, and therefore the body must be some part of man.’

 

[tonyrey]

By Creator, Father, and other masculine pronouns, this implies transcendence and are necessary to accurately describe for us the Nature of God.

Masculine pronouns are often used for brevity to refer to both sexes, e.g. a creator is not necessarily a female.

As a human father is transcendent to the production of a child in that he need not even be near the vicinity of the mother, who is immanent to the child, at the moment the child is created by the prior action of the two parents, God our Father is indicating His utter transcendence to His Creation.

Physical proximity is irrelevant to the nature of God! Utter transcendence would be indicated by the ability of the father to procreate** alone**… As things are, since both man and woman are essential for procreation they should both be regarded as participating in God’s power to create a person. A man without a woman is sterile!

These are the spiritual qualities of masculinity as drawn from the higher, God’s Nature, to the lower, masculinity in creation, and conveyed through God’s revelation to us in ways we can understand, as in “Our Father” being given to us directly by God Himself.

You have not explained what the spiritual qualities of masculinity are. Jesus constantly used parables and images to communicate spiritual truths - such as “everlasting fire”.
“Our Father” were the best words He could use in Jewish society to express the closeness and love but also the authority and **power **of God. “Our Mother” would have been totally alien to everyone’s experience and would have met with ridicule whereas there is no indication that anyone objected to the description of God as a Father.

God as Father becomes analogous rather than merely metaphorical. As a human father is the “source” or “principle” of his offspring (in a way that the mother, receiving the father and his procreative activity within herself, is not), so God is the “source” or “principle” of creation. In that sense, God is truly Father, not merely metaphorically so.

It takes two to tango! The physical act of procreation by insemination has no bearing on the spiritual act of Creation given that there are other forms of reproduction. There have even been more than two sexes in the early development of living organisms. The closest physical parallel to Creation is asexual reproduction in which another cell is made in the image and likeness of the first!

To regard a human father as the “source” or “principle” of his offspring in a prior way to the mother is an arbitrary and abstract justification of the hypothesis that paternity is a more fundamental reality than motherhood. Both parents are the “source” of their children and “principle” in this context is meaningless. Before God created life in what respects was He masculine?

Jesus said “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth”, i.e. without reference to any of the physical qualities in this world. That is conclusive enough. It is a crude anthropomorphism to cling to the notion that God is masculine…

 

[tonyrey]

“Our Father” were the best words He could use in Jewish society to express the closeness and love but also the authority and **power **of God. “Our Mother” would have been totally alien to everyone’s experience and would have met with ridicule whereas there is no indication that anyone objected to the description of God as a Father.

I mean of course that “Our Mother” would have been totally alien to everyone’s experience in the context of the authority and **power **of God…

 

[Betterave]

You always make these ad hominem remarks which you mistakenly think are logic.

They’re not logic; they’re logical. Your failing to notice that is unfortunate.

You consistently are the pot calling the kettle black. Confusing your conceit for superior reason.

Am I? That’s a bold assertion, completely unsupported by any attempt at reason-giving - LOL! And yet somehow you have the gall to say:

“There is nothing arrogant in my attitude.”

Riiiight! LOL!

There is I think an interesting question of how much an ideology like Christianity which has become institutionalized can allow itself to be influenced by outside ideas or ideas that came later historically, and still maintain the integrity of its identity. I would argue considerably more than many, not all and perhaps not you, would seem to be comfortable with.

You would, would you? And I assume those arguments would consist solely of more supercilious, groundless banalities which never address any specific points of fact? LOL!

In this discussion the question would be can Catholicism accept the use of some modern feminist language and still be Catholicism? That is not change the liturgy, but can people who choose to incorporate these ideas and in this case language still be considered included in what it to be Catholic. And if Catholicism as an ideology does allow this a broadening by the inclusion of newer ideas and language, what does that mean for what it is. Must it maintain absolute consistency with its original, or at least codified self, to be what it is. Or is that perhaps the potential seed of its own irrelevancy.

Perhaps, perhaps. That’s you making an argument, I suppose? FYI, that is not an argument; it is your armchair musings, completely unsupported by facts or reasons. Can you really not see that??

I realize that you might not find this an interesting question because you probably don’t understand what I am talking about. But it is actually a fundamental question for any ideology that exists beyond a fixed moment.

And I suppose that again you’ll want to claim: “There is nothing arrogant in my attitude.” Riiiight! LOL!

 

[Betterave]

Oops sorry Thanks for the admonition Although it does make my point more striking; Jesus as a man does not necessarily mean Jesus as God - as you have it - is also a man because there is a non mingling.

Well… don’t forget the unity, too, though: we believe Jesus is one person, human and divine. We can’t separate his divinity from his humanity.

Maybe lack of deference is the modern pandemic? I’m always surprised how quickly people are to correct His Holiness… never been that confident

Yes. Some people think this is an inevitable result of the patterns of thought which are engendered by modern representative democracies: “if we voted for you, you are legit (even though we don’t have to listen to you); if we didn’t even vote for you, how dare you tell us what to think?” It’s a difficult problem.

Someone mentioned that classically masculinity is ‘giver’ and femininity is ‘receiver’. Male characteristics then are positive in that they add something, such as Power etc Female characteristics are negative (NB I’m not being derrogatory here at all!!!) in that they receive something like Mercy etc. Since you would say ‘God is Love’ (we’d say God is Loving) then it suggests that the Divine Essence (denoted by the use of ‘is’ i.e. His Being) is Love and Love is a characteristic of femininity thus one could say there is something more profoundly feminine about the Divine. So as Absolute Awe Inspiring Master God is He, but as our Beloved He is She, which would make sense given the use of the latter by Saints in moments of spiritual ecstasy.

God knows best

Well that invites a deeper analysis of love, and from a Catholic perspective it seems to me quite clear that God’s love is primarily about giving. We view the male’s ‘donation’ in sexual love as an expression of love, not power, just as much as the female’s reception of the man’s gift. If the sexual expression of love devolves into an expression of power on either side, this is a corruption of the natural meaning of the sexual act.

 

[Betterave]

I do not believe a patriarchal outward society - as long as it is tempered with a matriarchal inner society - is in any way backward, this I think we’d agree would be the perfect one? Judea 33AD may have been backward in that it became too masculine (rather like more fundamentalist Muslim groupings today) and so Jesus redressed the balance and taught men how to love again and cherish women, in effect he taught them how to be feminine once more. Not that you believe he was just a teacher - maybe not the aim, but an objective

In general, yes: complementarity is absolutely necessary for a healthy society. We need strength, power, direction, guardianship; and compassion, empathy, receptiveness.

 

[John_Pascendi]

May I suggest taking your tuition money and enroll in a real catholic university. I don’t see the logic in spending it in a school that is bent on attacking the faith. What is the name of this school? Granted you may wish to keep your identity a secret but this a disservice to the young people on this board that may end up going to the same school unaware of its anti-catholic professors.

…big deal…I went to college for 8 years at night to earn my BA and MA…and taught in a ‘catholic’ small c…for 30 years…most colleges are controlled by the demons and I used to call those classes where I had to remain quiet or even nod when I heard my religion,country ,nationality etc attacked by ‘professors’ my white knuckle time. you are not supposed to try and convert these characters,what you want is that paper that will allow you to pursue the job you want… white knuckle time indeed…lies,hate etc.and in your term papers you repeat them as valid…just hold your nose and accept the fact. I still get letters from former students I had some 30 years ago thanking me for the values I taught them…the values that these colleges despise and hate…

 

[veritas82]

In general, yes: complementarity is absolutely necessary for a healthy society. We need strength, power, direction, guardianship; and compassion, empathy, receptiveness.

Yes This was my point; that a society needs to be in balance. So the outward world is typically masculine in character, but that does not mean it is only for men, not at all! My wife, for example, is a psychiatrist - and a very good one too . Likewise the inner society is typically feminine in character, but that does not mean it is only for women. I am mostly a house husband, for example. That said, it is a traditional view that God made men incline toward masculinity and women incline to femininity and I’m sure one in which we both share. In a nutshell, He who masters the masculine only is hard hearted and he who masters the feminine only is heretical; someone who knows only of God’s justice knows nothing of compassion and someone who knows only of God’s Compassion knows nothing of His Judgement - we all will be held accountable.

 

[veritas82]

Well… don’t forget the unity, too, though: we believe Jesus is one person, human and divine. We can’t separate his divinity from his humanity.

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

Well that invites a deeper analysis of love, and from a Catholic perspective it seems to me quite clear that God’s love is primarily about giving. We view the male’s ‘donation’ in sexual love as an expression of love, not power, just as much as the female’s reception of the man’s gift. If the sexual expression of love devolves into an expression of power on either side, this is a corruption of the natural meaning of the sexual act.

It is a very interesting topic. Love is clearly something Divine and therefore undefinable. It closes the gap between man and God, perhaps the use of the word love in this verse suggests that: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.” And here we have a sense of giving too That said there is also receiving too, so in your example the woman is still loving though receiving (which I’m sure you meant). Then we may also say that love is an attribute that transcends gender (in metaphorical sense)? It is giving and receiving. Because perhaps just to give is Mercy? Just to receive is Gratitude? What do you think?
The power thing I mentioned was just an example of a majestic quality, really.
From an Islamic perspective we view that all Love is a manifestation of God’s Love He has for himself, so in this sense by verses like ‘He loves them and they love Him,’ God is both giving and receiving, as are we but only through God, i.e. contingently.
Cool topic

 

[mcteague]

They’re not logic; they’re logical. Your failing to notice that is unfortunate.

Am I? That’s a bold assertion, completely unsupported by any attempt at reason-giving - LOL! And yet somehow you have the gall to say:

“There is nothing arrogant in my attitude.”

Riiiight! LOL!

You would, would you? And I assume those arguments would consist solely of more supercilious, groundless banalities which never address any specific points of fact? LOL!

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.
It seems to me that you mistakenly of thinkng all discourse in this forum must be debate. I am not debating. I am having a conversation.
Personally, I think it would be extremely arrogant and inappropriate for me, as a non-Catholic to argue what the correct view of Gods gender is for Catholics. That is really for each individual and that group really should decide that themselves.
However I am interested in raising certain points.

1. The original post does not claim that the professors make specific claims about Gods gender within the Catholic dogma. Only that she objects to referring to God as female in any theological discussion. That seems a little narrow to me.
2. It is questionable whether consensus on Gods gender is really necessary for Catholics as a group. Ones individual perspective may be different than another. But both may be acceptable in the broader definition of what it means to be Catholic.
3. Limiting discussion or definitions of what Catholicism is to references to scripture or the catechism may have unintended consequences of good and potentially valuable ideas. Just because Jesus or Aquinis did not use modern feminist language does not mean that the use of such language, or any idea outside the cannon, is incompatible with a definition of Catholicism. It might be, but there are potential problems with that exclusionary perspective that one should be aware of.
   I may have other points. But my computer is broken and this much typing on my iPhone becomes unpleasant. And I think I may be drifting a bit off point anyway.
   As far as the “debate” goes, let’s just say I am questioning certain premisis or constructs of the question.

Perhaps, perhaps. That’s you making an argument, I suppose? FYI, that is not an argument; it is your armchair musings, completely unsupported by facts or reasons. Can you really not see that??

And I suppose that again you’ll want to claim: “There is nothing arrogant in my attitude.” Riiiight! LOL!

 

[veritas82]

Indeed - but the body is not a part of God!

Of course

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!

This is a bold statement, is it not? Perhaps it is a little more a reaction by modern prejudices? Also would this not render ‘Christendom’ the high point of Catholic history as in manifest error? Maybe you need to expand a bit.

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.’
Co-Redemptrix in what sense?