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

[CEM5]

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?

No, angels are NOT more like God than humans. It is only humans that were created in God’s image, not angels. Angels were created to serve mankind and guard over us, (and at times carry God’s message to us) and when God created the first humans, we were higher than the angels. The only similarities are that angels and humans were created with free will and intellect. Other than that, they have no soul - they are spirit only. We have a soul (immortal) and spirit along with a corporeal body. However, because of our fall from grace, we became lower than the angels, but that did not change our status as “God’s children”, who are still created in God’s image. One day we will judge the angels. They will not judge us. In our fallen state as humans, we are now “lower” than the holy angels, including Jesus when He was in the human form, until He proved His obedience to God (with His human nature), and rose from the dead.

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

Matthew 18:10
"See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

1 Corinthians 6:3
Do you not know that we are to judge angels?

Hebrews 1:7
Of the angels he says, “Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.”

Hebrews 2:5
For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking.

blessings,
CEM

 

[tonyrey]

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.

That is indisputable!

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.

The Church teaches that Mary is the co-Redemptrix and Jesus accepted women as equals…

 

[tonyrey]

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

In what way is God partial?

Is this God a moral agent?

How else do you explain the fact that we are moral agents?

Are we even Created by this claimed moral agent?

What other explanation is more convincing?

 

[StrawberryJam]

That is indisputable!
The Church teaches that Mary is the co-Redemptrix and Jesus accepted women as equals…

Has the Catholic Church officially used the term co-Redemptrix, dogmatically?

 

[tonyrey]

Has the Catholic Church officially used the term co-Redemptrix, dogmatically?

It has not been dogmatically defined by the Church but many Catholics support it and the second Vatican Council declared Mary to be the Mother of the Church. It has been referred to in papal encyclicals and supported by theologians like Father Faber and the adviser to the Holy Office, Father Gabriel Roschini.

Do you believe in the superiority of the male sex?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

What is wrong with it?

Well, from a purely theological perspective nothing I suppose.

The idea of masculinity and fatherhood being closer to the divine (e.g. more godly) than femininity and motherhood seems to be a common theme throughout Christian history and philosophy.

From a historical perspective this has often been used to justify the oppression of women, and is still used to justify killing women for offenses like adultery and dressing immodestly in public (things that are not even crimes for native men) in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

This concept of divine masculinity has promoted the idea that women are more base, lustful, animalistic, etc. It is NOT harmless.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

I am curious, what do you mean by ‘there would be no problem.’

Are you saying that if it were proven to you theologically, you would accept that women (and therefore yourself) are inferior to men?

Correct me if I’m wrong please.

 

[bhall0689]

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?

I was saying there wouldn’t be a problem, if I actually believed his line of reasoning. If someone sucessfully could prove the belief that men are more godlike than women, then I would believe it. I highly, highly doubt it will happen, though - certainly not logically, and probably not theologically. So far no one has given me conclusive evidence that men are, just speculation and arguments with holes.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I was saying there wouldn’t be a problem, if I actually believed his line of reasoning. If someone sucessfully could prove the belief that men are more godlike than women, then I would believe it. I highly, highly doubt it will happen, though - certainly not logically, and probably not theologically. So far no one has given me conclusive evidence that men are, just speculation and arguments with holes.

What if a reigning Pope declared (during your lifetime) that men were superior to women and said that it was an infallible teaching of the Church?

Would that count as proof?

 

[bhall0689]

What if a reigning Pope declared (during your lifetime) that men were superior to women and said that it was an infallible teaching of the Church?

Would that count as proof?

No, because theological reasoning alone is not enough to prove a point to me. I take theological reasoning into account, of course, because I believe that human spirituality is important, but all reasoning does have to be based in some sort of logic. So if his argument was illogical, even if it had just one hole, I would reject it.

I’m sorry, but I’m a creature of reason, question, and doubt. While faith might be based at times in faith alone, the maxims that back up the foundation of the faith should be logical, or the Church will lose many and gain few.

 

[StrawberryJam]

What if a reigning Pope declared (during your lifetime) that men were superior to women and said that it was an infallible teaching of the Church?

Would that count as proof?

Devil’s argument:

Was this dogma being taught?
Infallible teaching is Dogma, everytime?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No, because theological reasoning alone is not enough to prove a point to me. I take theological reasoning into account, of course, because I believe that human spirituality is important, but all reasoning does have to be based in some sort of logic. So if his argument was illogical, even if it had just one hole, I would reject it.

I’m sorry, but I’m a creature of reason, question, and doubt. While faith might be based at times in faith alone, the maxims that back up the foundation of the faith should be logical, or the Church will lose many and gain few.

Then you should think long and hard if you are ever tempted to join the Catholic Church.

If I understand Catholicism correctly, Catholics are supposed to accept and believe in every teaching of the Pope that is declared infallible. Regardless of individual Catholics ethical concerns, intellectual objections, etc.

 

[Betterave]

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.

You wrote: “men are closer to God than women.” Why would you say that?

FYI: Pope John Paul II wrote that the Marian (feminine) dimension of the Church (which, b.t.w. is feminine - we call the Church ‘she’) has primacy over the Petrine (masculine) dimension, although both are necessary and complement each other. Catholics believe that there is no creature closer to God than the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[stephe1987]

We have spirit, will, and intellect. Remember, a spirit does not have a physical image (i.e. a body), so it can’t mean what people think it means.

I am a 23-year-old college-educated female. I don’t know what education or gender has to do with anything, though? People of all ages, from all places, men and women, all educational backgrounds (infants up to Ph.D’s) are welcome in and are members of the Catholic Church. “Catholic” means universal.

God is a spirit, and spirits do not have gender. But God is referred to as “he.”

Men and women are equal, but different. Women are called to be nurturers, and supporters to their husbands if they choose to marry. Even women who are not called to motherhood are called to be spiritual mothers to the people around them. Men are called to be spiritual leaders of their families. Some men are called to the Priesthood. Women are not called to the Priesthood but may serve God in other ways. Jesus had many women around him whom he loved and respected, but he only chose men. For this reason, the Church does not have the authority to ordain women, but women can still be active in the Church. Adam was created first, and Eve second as his companion.

God chose to come to earth as a man, and he chose to come into the world through Mary. Catholics hold Mary in very high respect, she is the most-respected human, other than Jesus (God in flesh).

I think you might be confusing Catholic Christianity with Islam. The Qur’an has many references to women being inferior to men (women are half as intelligent, most people in hell will be women). Catholics do not believe these things.

If I understand Catholicism correctly, Catholics are supposed to accept and believe in every teaching of the Pope that is declared infallible. Regardless of individual Catholics ethical concerns, intellectual objections, etc.

The Pope is only considered infallible in areas pertaining to faith and morals. Catholics believe that he is the servant-representative of Christ on earth and is guided by the Holy Spirit in those areas. However, he is not infallible in other areas, and can make mistakes just like any other human being.

 

[Debora123]

If God is neither man nor woman, but pure spirit, then why does the Church insist on calling him God the Father. And get upset when he is called God the Mother.

I think the answer is actually a lot more simple than people think.

Let’s face it. We live in a world where men have superiority. Most presidents have been men, there have been a lot more kings in power than queens, etc, etc… I can’t explain why that is the way it is, but it is. And that is fact. My theory is that God has always been referred to as a Father vs a Mother, because us humans can relate to that better. When we think of someone who has power and authority, we automatically think male, and that’s just natural. God knows this, and understands this, so yes, He refers to himself mainly as a father because he knows that as humans, we can relate to that better.

Very simple answer, but honestly, I think that’s really all there is to it. Sometimes all it takes is a little bit of logical thinking.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think the answer is actually a lot more simple than people think.

Let’s face it. We live in a world where men have superiority. Most presidents have been men, there have been a lot more kings in power than queens, etc, etc… I can’t explain why that is the way it is, but it is. And that is fact. My theory is that God has always been referred to as a Father vs a Mother, because us humans can relate to that better. When we think of someone who has power and authority, we automatically think male, and that’s just natural. God knows this, and understands this, so yes, He refers to himself mainly as a father because he knows that as humans, we can relate to that better.

Very simple answer, but honestly, I think that’s really all there is to it. Sometimes all it takes is a little bit of logical thinking.

Too bad this logic does not hold for all the other things God does that we can not relate to at all.

 

[bhall0689]

I think the answer is actually a lot more simple than people think.

Let’s face it. We live in a world where men have superiority. Most presidents have been men, there have been a lot more kings in power than queens, etc, etc… I can’t explain why that is the way it is, but it is. And that is fact. My theory is that God has always been referred to as a Father vs a Mother, because us humans can relate to that better. When we think of someone who has power and authority, we automatically think male, and that’s just natural. God knows this, and understands this, so yes, He refers to himself mainly as a father because he knows that as humans, we can relate to that better.

Very simple answer, but honestly, I think that’s really all there is to it. Sometimes all it takes is a little bit of logical thinking.

This argument doesn’t hold for me, because the positions of power that men hold are societal constructions. Society has created an environment that is still in some regards, even in 2010, sexist. Men still hold most elite positions of power and earn more than women for completing the same level of work. These are all societal constructions that have nothing to do with the realm of the spiritual.

As a female, I do not naturally relate to men better. I feel much more in relation to other women.

Finally, thank you for suggesting logical thinking. Obviously it’s something I’ve never engaged in.

 

[Betterave]

This argument doesn’t hold for me, because the positions of power that men hold are societal constructions.

That’s obvious, but non-decisive. The question remains: are these arbitrary societal constructions? Or are they grounded in anthropology?

Society has created an environment that is still in some regards, even in 2010, sexist. Men still hold most elite positions of power and earn more than women for completing the same level of work. These are all societal constructions that have nothing to do with the realm of the spiritual.

What do you mean by ‘sexist’? (This term can be very problematic.) Why do you assume that societal constructions have nothing to do with the realm of the spiritual?

As a female, I do not naturally relate to men better. I feel much more in relation to other women.

I think you missed Deborah’s point here.

 

[bhall0689]

Because we live in a secular society. I suppose you could argue that it’s “God’s plan” that men hold these elite positions, and “God’s plan” that men and women are not paid equal wages for the same work, yet theological reasoning is often best applied to theological questions - not secular ones dealing with government and the workplace. When men are given preferential treatment simply based on their physical structure - that they have a penis - as opposed to their intelligence or reason, then that is damaging and sexist. In fact, this seems pretty in line with the dictionary definition I found, which states that sexism is: “The belief that people of one sex or gender are inherently superior to people of the other sex or gender; Unfair treatment or discrimination based on a difference of sex or gender; Disadvantage or unequal opportunity arising from the cultural dominance of one gender over the other.”

You ask me how I know these things don’t have to do with the realm of the spiritual? How do you know they do? The sexism is bred in a secular environment, so one might assume that its origins are mostly secular.

Now that we’ve lined up what sexism is, and how our secular society is still sexist aside from any theological “plan” . . .

Are these societal constructions arbitary? No, because we have lived in a traditionally patriarchal society that just in the past 100 years has begun to equate a woman’s place with a man’s. To me, this has nothing to with how God wants it to be. I believe that Jesus would have promoted fairness and equality between the sexes in the workplace.

Finally, I don’t think I missed Debora’s point. She said that since men hold most positions of leadership (which I pointed out as flawed, not good), God refers to himself as a male because we can relate to him in a leadership position better. I said that I could not relate to God better because of his “maleness,” and that as a female, I’m naturally more inclined to react to a female in a position of leadership with empathy and understanding. I do not respect female leaders and more than male ones, and vice versa, but our shared gender puts us on a sort of level playing field that I can well relate to. I feel I can relate to females better than men, and therefore relate to female leaders better than men.

 

[Debora123]

I’m not by any means trying to support sexism here. I don’t think it’s necessarily “sexist” that men tend to have more authoritative roles. I think that’s just a natural thing. There are far more police officers, military leaders, presidents, governors, etc etc who are men. Maybe a small part of that may be because of sexism, but I think a much bigger part is that men just generally tend to have a more natural inclination to those types or of roles. I mean think about it - at least here in the US, nothing is stopping a woman from going into criminal justice or from getting involved in politics, yet there are a lot more MEN who seek those types of roles than WOMEN. So all I’m saying is that naturally, at least most of us tend to think masculinity when we think of a powerful authority figure. Now you may be the exception to the rule, but that’s why I said MOST of us.

There’s nothing at all sexist about men having more authoritative roles. Us women are better than men at many other roles. We have other natural qualities that perhaps most men aren’t so great at. It’s not saying one sex is better than the other, it’s just saying that we’re different.

And I wasn’t meaning to say that we all relate to men better than to women, I was meaning to say that we relate authority figures to masculinity more than to femininity. So yes, you did miss my point there and I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear enough.

Again, this is just my theory of why God presents himself to us as male. And this theory is purely based on logic and some common sense thinking on my part. This isn’t written anywhere. At least I don’t think it is. So I could very well be wrong here.