If We Are Created In God's Image, Why Is He Nothing Like Us?

[1ke]

It has most of the traditional arguments for why men are supposedly more holy/close to God than women (except the ones that simply claim women are dumber, more lustful, etc.). It basically boils down to the idea that because men begin (initiate) the process of pregnancy/reproduction and do not go through the work of creating a child in their body, they are more like God.

The article does not say, nor does the Church teach, that men are “more like” God than women.

 

[bhall0689]

**WHY GOD IS FATHER AND NOT MOTHER **

This is one of the larger issues I took with Catholic teaching - I went to Catholic school from PreK to 12th grade! I feel that the label of man as the “source” because he impregnates a woman, which makes her the “nurturer” and active recipient is a little outmoded. The man might release the seed, but the seed will not become a baby without the similar release of an egg on a woman’s behalf. I do not think that one takes precedence over another as a primary “source”. It rubbed me the wrong way then, and rereading the document, it still does now.

I, personally, think that God is neither male nor female, but the epitaph “he” is still most commonly used, and the proposition of finding gender-neutral pronouns for any type of writing is troublesome.

 

[buffalo]

This is one of the larger issues I took with Catholic teaching - I went to Catholic school from PreK to 12th grade! I feel that the label of man as the “source” because he impregnates a woman, which makes her the “nurturer” and active recipient is a little outmoded. The man might release the seed, but the seed will not become a baby without the similar release of an egg on a woman’s behalf. I do not think that one takes precedence over another as a primary “source”. It rubbed me the wrong way then, and rereading the document, it still does now.

I, personally, think that God is neither male nor female, but the epitaph “he” is still most commonly used, and the proposition of finding gender-neutral pronouns for any type of writing is troublesome.

Catholic teaching is God is pure spirit and does not have a sex. Agreed, trying to fluff the issue with gender neutral pronouns is a problem. It is better to deal with the texts and their reality.

Do you think Mary was disturbed by the fact she was a vessel?

Then you have to take issue with the fact “man” was created first. He was appointed by God as the head of the human race.

 

[bhall0689]

No, I don’t take issue with that in societal context. But to a certain extent in a philosophical context, yes. I think that men and women are both active givers and receivers during sex. I do not think that one is the primary “source.”

Once again, even though the man releases the seed to make the baby, deposited seed with no egg does not equal life. A woman must also release an egg, and although this is much more timed and infrequent, it is an equal “release.” Both things must be present. Therefore, the argument has never made sense to me on a practical level.

Also, the term “vessel” and “active recipient” seem quite contrary in nature, although the Catholic church uses both terms to describe women engaged in the marital act. A “vessel” is defined as (defined by the Oxford dictionary, source = oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1304016#m_en_us1304016))))

1. A hollow container, especially one used to hold liquid, such as a bowl or cask.

Although Mary, as a Saint, might have been able to deal with such a societal assignment in a ‘godlike’ manner, I remain rather opposed to the comparison to an inanimate object. Apart from the admittedly vague ‘definition,’ the term “vessel” itself does not imply a particularly active or eagerly receptive role, even though the Church preaches a woman should be both that AND a vessel.

I do not understand how a man “release” of sperm to create a child takes precedence over a woman “release” of an egg to create a child.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Remember two essentials:

Eve came from Adam
Eve was punished with the pain of childbirth

How does that in any way contradict what you are replying to (that I said earlier)?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The article does not say, nor does the Church teach, that men are “more like” God than women.

The article SPECIFICALLY says that men are more like God because they are both initiators.

Here are a few lines from the article which best illustrate the point:

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.

A father can be an analogue for the Creator who creates out of nothing insofar as fathers—while not procreating out of nothing—nevertheless are the “source” or “principle” of procreation as initiators, as God is the source of creation. But a mother, being the impregnated rather than the impregnator, is analogous neither to God as Creator from nothing, nor God as the initiating “source” or “principle” of creation. As a mother, she can be likened to God only in metaphorical ways—as nurturing, caring, etc., as we see in Scripture.

 

[bhall0689]

The article SPECIFICALLY says that men are more like God because they are both initiators.

Here are a few lines from the article which best illustrate the point:

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.

A father can be an analogue for the Creator who creates out of nothing insofar as fathers—while not procreating out of nothing—nevertheless are the “source” or “principle” of procreation as initiators, as God is the source of creation. But a mother, being the impregnated rather than the impregnator, is analogous neither to God as Creator from nothing, nor God as the initiating “source” or “principle” of creation. As a mother, she can be likened to God only in metaphorical ways—as nurturing, caring, etc., as we see in Scripture.

This seems very cut-and-dry, yet debatable to me. I will repeat again, what makes the sperm any more of a “source” or “principle” than an egg? Can a baby not exist without both? Even though the sperm most be “deposited,” mustn’t an egg also be “deposited” to create a baby? There is not always an egg, therefore a man is not the sole “source.” The presence of an egg is much rarer than the presence of sperm, so one might even argue that women are the true “source.” A man can often conjure sperm at will, or at least relatively easily, while a woman must wait for a few precious days a month. Seems like she is the more dependent factor, then.

 

[CEM5]

It was asked why is God called Father and not mother?

Well, let’s take a look at who God is:

God is Father,
God is Son and
God is Holy Spirit

This is what God has done/and does:

God is Creator
God is Redeemer and
God is Sanctifier

God as Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, and she is the holy and most pure mother of Jesus, the Son of God. Jesus came to earth as a man, and He is the image of God, therefore as this image is male, so therefore is God through Jesus, the Son. The term “father” is used because Mary is female and woman, and therefore the Mother. Jesus has a mother and a Father (God the Father).

God as spirit is neither male nor female - God is the embodiment of both traits of man and woman: Strong, protector, provider, kind, loving, gentle, forgiving, and so on. In the Bible ‘wisdom’ is described as feminine and attributed to God. (Book of Wisdom)

Adam and Eve were created as equals in the Garden of Eden. When God created Adam, He put Adam to sleep and from Adam rib (his side) God created woman, Eve. This is flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone, said Adam, meaning that she came from him, and is part of him. Equal. The taking from Adam’s side was also indicative of Eve walking side by side with Adam, and being his helpmate, not his slave nor his subordinate.

The fall of man is called the “sin of Adam”, not the sin of Eve, because it was to Adam that God gave the responsibility of not eating of the fruit of the Tree of knowlege of Good and Evil. Recall that when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, nothing happened unti Adam listened to her and ate it as well. Adam could have remained obedient, but instead he disobeyed. Rather than acknowledge his sin when God questioned him, Adam instead tried to pass the blame onto God by saying “it was the woman YOU gave me…”. No apology, no contrition, just blaming someone else!

So, because mankind was created in God’s image (let US make man in OUR image - this is alluding to the Trinity), man’s sin was eternal. The image of God that man was created in was already mentioned by another poster: We have an immortal soul and we have intelligence and free will. Image does not mean “same as”. It is a reflection. Also, God created everything “good”, there was no evil, and God is not evil. Therefore, man was also created in God’s “good” image.

Blessings

 

[bhall0689]

It was asked why is God called Father and not mother?

Well, let’s take a look at who God is:

God is Father,
God is Son and
God is Holy Spirit

This is what God has done/and does:

God is Creator
God is Redeemer and
God is Sanctifier

God as Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, and she is the holy and most pure mother of Jesus, the Son of God. Jesus came to earth as a man, and He is the image of God, therefore as this image is male, so therefore is God through Jesus, the Son. The term “father” is used because Mary is female and woman, and therefore the Mother. Jesus has a mother and a Father (God the Father).

God as spirit is neither male nor female - God is the embodiment of both traits of man and woman: Strong, protector, provider, kind, loving, gentle, forgiving, and so on. In the Bible ‘wisdom’ is described as feminine and attributed to God. (Book of Wisdom)

Adam and Eve were created as equals in the Garden of Eden. When God created Adam, He put Adam to sleep and from Adam rib (his side) God created woman, Eve. This is flesh of my flesh, bone of my bone, said Adam, meaning that she came from him, and is part of him. Equal. The taking from Adam’s side was also indicative of Eve walking side by side with Adam, and being his helpmate, not his slave nor his subordinate.

The fall of man is called the “sin of Adam”, not the sin of Eve, because it was to Adam that God gave the responsibility of not eating of the fruit of the Tree of knowlege of Good and Evil. Recall that when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, nothing happened unti Adam listened to her and ate it as well. Adam could have remained obedient, but instead he disobeyed. Rather than acknowledge his sin when God questioned him, Adam instead tried to pass the blame onto God by saying “it was the woman YOU gave me…”. No apology, no contrition, just blaming someone else!

So, because mankind was created in God’s image (let US make man in OUR image - this is alluding to the Trinity), man’s sin was eternal. The image of God that man was created in was already mentioned by another poster: We have an immortal soul and we have intelligence and free will. Image does not mean “same as”. It is a reflection. Also, God created everything “good”, there was no evil, and God is not evil. Therefore, man was also created in God’s “good” image.

Blessings

I would really like to thank you for taking the time for this intelligent response. It seems much more justified than many other lines of argument I have heard here.

 

[LilyM]

Put it this way - a photograph, statue or painting of me is certainly created ‘in my image and likeness’ is it not?

At least unless the painter is Picasso or the sculptor Giacometti or something.

But there are many many of my attributes that that photo, statue or painting doesn’t share. It doesn’t breathe, eat, excrete. It lacks the capacity to think or reproduce itself. Heck, most of the time it won’t even have real hair as I do.

An ‘image or likeness’ doesn’t have to perfectly resemble the original in every particular, or even many particulars, as long as it bears some resemblances.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If the question is about God’s partiality I can understand that feeling.

Is this God a moral agent?

Are we even Created by this claimed moral agent?

 

[EmeraldWings]

when God created us in His image and likeness, it was our souls He created in His image and likeness, not our bodies,
although you could say we were made in the image of Christ who would come, since God is outside of time, that is quite possible,

as for God being Our Father, well, what’s wrong with that? God can choose such a title distinct from that of a mother, and after all, we already have a heavenly mother, the Mother of God Mary most holy,
and if you want to look at God in a motherly way, well the Holy Ghost does take that kind of role, so really we do have both a mother and father in God, but at the same time, God the father and God the Holy Ghost have no gender, whereas God the son does,
but if God has chosen to be called “Our Father”, i’m sure He has very good reason for doing so, after all, has not the father, throughout history, been the leader and guardian? of course man is not perfect and many are not “good” leaders, but God the Father we can look on as a perfect Father, one which we should be glad to lovingly call “Our Father”…perhaps those who did not have a very good father would not understand so much, but even those who didn’t, can come to know what a truly good Father is when they learn to know and love God.

ok, hope this helps, take care.

 

[bhall0689]

ewtn.com/library/Theology/NOTMOTHR.HTM

It doesn’t really help, because it does not directly answer my question. I don’t think there is a good response to it. The issue I have is not the primarily masculine identity of God in and of itself, but the Church’s justification for it. It is this same line of thought used to justify women’s place in the Church. I’ve reattached the document in case some didn’t read it. Scroll down to and read the section labeled “Father and Mother.”

The basic argument is, that since a man physically enters and impregnates the woman with a release of his seed, he is the “source”/“provider” and the woman assumes the role of active recipient/nurturer. This is used to point to man and woman’s supposed “true” nature, as well as their roles in the Church, in which the male priest is providing the “source” of Communion and the parish, specifically women who cannot consecrate the Eucharist, serve the role of active recipients.

Here is what I said earlier, hopefully now in context, repeated:
What makes the sperm any more of a “source” or “principle” than an egg? Can a baby not exist without both? Even though the sperm most be “deposited,” mustn’t an egg also be “deposited” to create a baby? There is not always an egg, therefore a man is not the sole “source.” The presence of an egg is much rarer than the presence of sperm, so one might even argue that women are the true “source.” A man can often conjure sperm at will, or at least relatively easily, while a woman must wait for a few precious days a month. Seems like she is the more dependent factor, then.

 

[Cherry5]

when God created us in His image and likeness, it was our souls He created in His image and likeness, not our bodies,
although you could say we were made in the image of Christ who would come, since God is outside of time, that is quite possible,

as for God being Our Father, well, what’s wrong with that? God can choose such a title distinct from that of a mother, and after all, we already have a heavenly mother, the Mother of God Mary most holy,
and if you want to look at God in a motherly way, well the Holy Ghost does take that kind of role, so really we do have both a mother and father in God, but at the same time, God the father and God the Holy Ghost have no gender, whereas God the son does,
but if God has chosen to be called “Our Father”, i’m sure He has very good reason for doing so, after all, has not the father, throughout history, been the leader and guardian? of course man is not perfect and many are not “good” leaders, but God the Father we can look on as a perfect Father, one which we should be glad to lovingly call “Our Father”…perhaps those who did not have a very good father would not understand so much, but even those who didn’t, can come to know what a truly good Father is when they learn to know and love God.

ok, hope this helps, take care.

Interesting discussion, does this mean that since God has strong attributes of both Male and Female, transgendered people are more like the image of God and if so why do we have trouble accepting them the way they are?

God Bless

 

[ricmat]

Most of this controversy seems to be centered around the earthly aspect of men and women, and the perception that a “masculine” God must lead to the conclusion that earthly men are better than earthly women.

A point that I think may have been missed is that from God’s “relationship” perspective, ALL human souls are feminine - designed to be the receptor of God’s love. God in his masculine aspect is the initiator of that love relationship, and ALL humans were created to receive that love. The “Bridegroom of our souls” is in all cases, Jesus, whether or not we are male or female.

Ironically, it seems to me that this puts men at a disadvantage in the “trying to be holy” department. Women can accept the idea of Jesus as the bridegroom of their souls in a relatively easy fashion. It’s not as easy for men. IMHO.

 

[EmeraldWings]

Interesting discussion, does this mean that since God has strong attributes of both Male and Female, transgendered people are more like the image of God and if so why do we have trouble accepting them the way they are?

God Bless

well, the thing of it is, God does not have “male” or “female” attributes at all,
instead, we as male and female have His attributes,
the fatherly or motherly role He may play, is not gender based, but instead based on things such as - compassion, understanding, firmness, leadership, mercy, wisdom, patience, and so on, we are the ones that look at mother and father as gender based because that is all we know.
but because God has no gender, so it is not our gender that is made in the image and likeness of God, but instead it is by our virtues, which are in the spirit,

i also want to add to my last post, that perhaps the reason that God has never taken on the title “mother” is because He wanted to save it especially for His Blessed Mother, who He loves so very much,
though i don’t truly know, but that would be a very beautiful reason.

but as for calling God Our Father, we do so because Jesus called Him Father, and as far as i know, that is the main reason why…

 

[CEM5]

Interesting discussion, does this mean that since God has strong attributes of both Male and Female, transgendered people are more like the image of God and if so why do we have trouble accepting them the way they are?

God Bless

God is not like a transgendered person in that aspect. Transgender has to do with the physical, and God is spirit, thus it is the spiritual attributes that are of both male and female qualities. Strength, kindness, gentleness, forgiveness, charitable love, sacrificial love, defender, provider, and so on…nothing to do with the physcial aspect.

blessings,

 

[CEM5]

I would really like to thank you for taking the time for this intelligent response. It seems much more justified than many other lines of argument I have heard here.

your welcome, re: my first post, and thank you too. :thankyou: :flowers:

 

[The_Exodus]

The article SPECIFICALLY says that men are more like God because they are both initiators.

I’m not taking sides here one way or the other, but, if this were true, what is wrong with it?

Angels are more like God than humans, humans more like God than animals, animals more than plants, etc. on down the chain. There is so injustice done to one species, simply because it is not the other species. The fact that a species exists at all and gets to imitate the divine nature is pure grace. What, then, would be the problem if men were indeed more in the image of God? Will you complain too that the Seraphim are more like God?

 

[bhall0689]

I’m not taking sides here one way or the other, but, if this were true, what is wrong with it?

Angels are more like God than humans, humans more like God than animals, animals more than plants, etc. on down the chain. There is so injustice done to one species, simply because it is not the other species. The fact that a species exists at all and gets to imitate the divine nature is pure grace. What, then, would be the problem if men were indeed more in the image of God? Will you complain too that the Seraphim are more like God?

There would be no problem, but I have seen no conclusive evidence of men being closer to God. Some men are holy, but many men are egotistical, masochistic, and immoral people. The same goes for women. This tenant is literally what began severing my belief in the Church, as it seems so much of the theology is built upon the fact that women are receivers, men are givers, men are closer to God than women. This dictates women’s place in the Church, society, and the family.

I’m very sorry if this offends anyone, and it might hurt to hear, but any sort of teaching or belief that preaches the superiority of one sex over another is a sexist teaching or belief.

I’m sorry if the Church teaches that it’s just the “way it is,” but as a young, college-educated female I view it as being completely faith-based as opposed to logic-based, and can’t help but take issue with that. I’ve been taught to reason, think, and challenge my entire life.

I’m 21 years old.