Is God Female?

[manualman]

BibleReader, I was with you for a while.

But you reach too far when you say it is appropriate to call God ‘she.’

As we already hashed out:

1. God does not have a gender.
2. God made Adam in His image, then divided him into Adam and Eve.
3. God the Son became incarnate in a man, who instructed us to call the First Person ‘Father.’
4. Thus, because of God’s own actions, it is appropriate to use the pronoun ‘He.’ It appears that a masculine role is appropriate in His judgement for our proper understanding of God.
5. While God posseses all of the good characteristics thought of as feminine in humans (see #2 above), He never instructed us the use a feminine name.

This inability to use a feminine pronoun for God has nothing to do with your correct notion that all good feminine characteristics find their source in God. It is inappropriate to use ‘She’ simply because God never OK’d it in any way, shape or form.

 

[javelin]

I may be wrong, but I think people are misunderstanding BibleReader’s point. I don’t recall him ever stating that we should, or are justified in referring to God using feminine pronouns. Rather, he said this:

BibleReader:

COULD God have picked one as the way we should address Him, as well as the other?

I think his point is that our reasons for using masculine pronouns to reference God are simply because God has elected to present himself to us in that manner. However, there is nothing intrinsic in the essence of God that makes Him more male than female, for *all *“maleness” and *all *“female-ness” come from God; indeed, *everything *comes from God.

So, God could have (not “God has”) chosen to reveal Himself to us using all feminine images and pronouns, and it would have been just as appropriate.

Please correct me if I have mis-characterized your point, BibleReader.

However, God did not choose to use feminine pronouns or types to refer to Himself – rather He has consistently referred to Himself in the masculine. Thus, so should we, and it is the only proper way to address Him. The argument “but God has feminine qualities” is simply not strong enough to outweigh the testamony of Sacred Scripture and Church Tradition, which both consistently refer to God in the masculine.

Moreover, since God could have chosen to reveal Himself to us in the feminine, we should be asking “why didn’t He?” There was nothing stopping Him. To argue that it was only societal gender bias over thousands of years is ridiculous since, as has been pointed out, most pagan gods happily and successfully took feminine images and forms.

Rather, God chose a masculine image to better enable us to understand who He is, and our relationship to Him. I firmly believe it is because the male type better signifies His relationship to us and His very nature (as we understand Him) that He chose the masculine form for His revelation of Himself to our limited human minds.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Mike_Cooksey]

In Pope John Paul IIs Theology of the Body theme it orients men as givers and women as receivers.

Now ladies don’t get upset here because we all know how much many of you give.

As givers, men were made priests etc. to serve the human race.

I believe one reason Christ came as a man was so he could establish the new priesthood from the Jewish origin. He could not have done so as a female.

The highest honor of our race is Mary, the new Eve. Why would any female therefore ever want the position of male?

Since God is neither male nor female, gender appears to this student as being unimportant compared to functional assignment.

Ever wonder what He has done on other planets?

 

[BibleReader]

manualman:

BibleReader, I was with you for a while.

But you reach too far when you say it is appropriate to call God ‘she.’

As we already hashed out:

1. God does not have a gender.
2. God made Adam in His image, then divided him into Adam and Eve.
3. God the Son became incarnate in a man, who instructed us to call the First Person ‘Father.’
4. Thus, because of God’s own actions, it is appropriate to use the pronoun ‘He.’ It appears that a masculine role is appropriate in His judgement for our proper understanding of God.
5. While God posseses all of the good characteristics thought of as feminine in humans (see #2 above), He never instructed us the use a feminine name.

This inability to use a feminine pronoun for God has nothing to do with your correct notion that all good feminine characteristics find their source in God. It is inappropriate to use ‘She’ simply because God never OK’d it in any way, shape or form.

You seem to be a little too precise and clear to be “at” truth in you presentation.

**But you reach too far when you say it is appropriate to call God ‘she.’ **Is that what I said? Or is this what I said…

In fact, God has both maleness and femaleness in Him, otherwise these could not have come OUT of Him upon our creation. Does that make sense?

Nonetheless, it is against the Bible, so to speak, to refer to God as “She.” The reasons for that are NOT “masculine by preference.”

…

Calling God a “she” is at war with the type.

…

In fact God can, technically, be correctly referred to as “she” just as God can technically be referred to as a “He.”

I know what the Catechism says. And I know that your answer in part tracks what the Catechism says, so that you can point to a paragraph and say, “LOOK! LOOK! The Catechism agreees with me WORD-FOR-WORD! You HAVE TO agree with me.” But the Magisterium is simply NOT going to disagree with the proposition that in a critical sense something has to be “in” God first for it to then come “out” of God. The Magisterium is not going to say otherwise.

**1. God does not have a gender. **This is correct to a limited extent. Clearly, God has gender-ness “in” Himself in *some *sense, otherwise it could not have come “out” of Him as it did.

**2. God made Adam in His image, then divided him into Adam and Eve. **As stated, that is probably bad theology, but no one is going to go into crisis over that.

**3. God the Son became incarnate in a man, who instructed us to call the First Person ‘Father.’ **Close enough to truth. Here, when you say, “God the Son…;instructed us to call the First Person ‘Father’,” I agree.

**4. Thus, because of God’s own actions, it is appropriate to use the pronoun ‘He.’ It appears that a masculine role is appropriate in His judgement for our proper understanding of God. **

---

**5. While God posseses all of the good characteristics thought of as feminine in humans (see #2 above), He never instructed us the use a feminine name. **This is a teensy weensy bit mistaken.

At least ONCE in the Bible, a woman is used to foreshadow Christ, because the Woman Type = “mankind in need of salvation,” and Christ came IN THE FORM OF “mankind in need of salvation.”

---

 

[pilchard]

Haven’t read the thread on this - so apologies to all who have already made the same point - but the question "Is God Male or Female? is simply a falsew dichotomy. Is red round or square?

God isn’t so much male or female as “Father Son and Holy Spirit”

As a general principle of apologetics always be suscpisious of either/or questions. Aricles/aspects of the Faith arer not so much either/or as both/and

Beware the False Dichotomy

As for the feminine and masculine in relation to God - well now that’s a different quesiton - and one in which I would be out of my depth trying to answer. Perhaps other’s already have.

 

[Convert68]

Wormwood:

This seems so very simple…maybe I am missing something. God is the only God right? He’s not from a race of God’s, or a dimension of Gods? Just the the one right? So if “he” has no sexual partner, why would “he” develop sexual characteristics? Seems like a moot point, like men having nipples. Appearing to us in one way or another is one thing, but for “him” to actually have a gender seems illogical. “He” just seems like a more personal term than “it” when refering to God. Just an outside perspective for you.

Actually, God does in a sense have a sexual partner. He is the male parent of Jesus and not just figuratively - The Y-chromosome and the male half of his other 44 chromosomes came from the Holy Spirit according to the Bible.

 

[Kristina_P]

Magnolia:

Thanks VC for your offer to help - I accept! This is why I love these forums because of the wealth of understanding people share.

I want to talk to my fellow volunteer before next week and with the help of the Holy Spirit and all of you, speaking in truth and love, help her to appreciate the responsibility she has as a cathecist.

So how do I approach her? I am not the best at expressing what I know in my heart and feel like Moses when God said to go to Pharoah. Why me? Send someone else!

M

I’d say to do your best not to seem to attack her or even her beliefs. Just point out that Jesus consistently referred to God as “Father,” and that throughout the Bible, God is called a “He.” Obviously, this is the way God wanted us to refer to Him. It doesn’t mean that women aren’t created in His image or that it’s an “insult” to use feminine words to describe Him. It just means that “He” is a better word to use. The quotes from the CCC that were posted above are also great.

 

[Kristina_P]

Convert68:

Actually, God does in a sense have a sexual partner. He is the male parent of Jesus and not just figuratively - The Y-chromosome and the male half of his other 44 chromosomes came from the Holy Spirit according to the Bible.

Actually, doesn’t the Church teach that all of Christ’s DNA came from Mary?

 

[Eileen_T]

Maranatha:

While everyone agrees that God transcends gender there are good theological reasons to refer to Him in the masculine. This in no way is meant to state or imply that women are inferior. We are all made in His image.
. . .
A woman can not impregnate herself naturally and this parrallels the universe lack of ability to create itself naturally.

The ancient Jewish use of the masculine was distinctive from all other religions which had both masculine and feminine gods. The Jewish God is based on an infinite First Cause coming from outside the universe.

Scripture gives God feminine qualities. God shows compassion, caring and a motherly comfort towards an infant. Despite these qualities Jews refused to call God a she because they are making a theological statement.

yadda yadda yadda

To simplify this discussion. . .

Mary is the highly favored daughter of the Father;
The Mother of the Son; and
The Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

When Mary is brought into this discussion, the gender of God becomes obvious!

END OF STORY

 

[Convert68]

Kristina P.:

Actually, doesn’t the Church teach that all of Christ’s DNA came from Mary?

That’s not possible because Mary being female (the model for all females) would not have had a Y-chromosome to pass on to her son and without that Jesus would not have been male.

It’s the same problem for the creation of the first two humans. The male had to have come first because a female could be fashioned from the genetic material of a male but not a male from a female (Eve would have been Adam’s clone except that she had a double of his X-chromosome and no Y).

The Bible clearly states that Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit so the male half of Jesus’s genetics came from God.

 

[Kristina_P]

Convert68:

That’s not possible because Mary being female (the model for all females) would not have had a Y-chromosome to pass on to her son and without that Jesus would not have been male.

It’s the same problem for the creation of the first two humans. The male had to have come first because a female could be fashioned from the genetic material of a male but not a male from a female (Eve would have been Adam’s clone except that she had a double of his X-chromosome and no Y).

The Bible clearly states that Mary conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit so the male half of Jesus’s genetics came from God.

I’m not arguing the science of it, though I appreciate your response. I was just asking because I thought I read that the Church taught that all of Christ’s DNA came from Mary. Considering what a miracle it was, I don’t doubt that God could do a little recombining and come up with a Y chromosome.

 

[Convert68]

Kristina P.:

I’m not arguing the science of it, though I appreciate your response. I was just asking because I thought I read that the Church taught that all of Christ’s DNA came from Mary. Considering what a miracle it was, I don’t doubt that God could do a little recombining and come up with a Y chromosome.

Either way, the Y-chromosome would be extraneous. All of Jesus’ other chromosomes could have come from Mary and I suppose with various combinations, he wouldn’t be a male clone of her.

It’s interesting that here we are speculating and all the while God knows exactly what happened!

 

[Maranatha]

Eileen T:

yadda yadda yadda

To simplify this discussion. . .

Mary is the highly favored daughter of the Father;
The Mother of the Son; and
The Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

When Mary is brought into this discussion, the gender of God becomes obvious!

END OF STORY

I disagree. You can not limit God to a single gender. We can refer to God in a single gender. An excellent reason to do so is out of respect for the Mother of God.

 

[AsStAnselmPrays]

Our Mother, who art in Heaven…

Ring a bell? Didn’t think so.

Our Father, who art in Heaven…

Much better. Case closed.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

But our mother is in heaven, right. Mary is there. So could we come up with something like:
Our Mother
who art in heaven,
uhh… imporant be thy name
thy son come
his kingdom come
down here like it is up there,
pray us sinners

or something like that. But yeah your righ the “Our Father” sounds a whole lot better anyhow.

 

[rayne100]

PiusXIII:

God could not be a woman. The Catholic church does not ordain women because the church knows there’s no possible way that God could be a woman.

What are you talking about?
God is god, He/she has no gender, why then would it not be acceptible to refer to her as she or he as he. This is a rediculous conversation.
If the children are distracted, take some time to explain why she referred to God as She and not as He. It may spark some discussion and get the kids more enthused about dicussing God and his teachings.

on another note, another poster stated that it has been stated again and again that god was referred to as HE in the bible. ther are several cultural reasons for that during that time of which I’m sure you all know.
At that time, women and children where not counted and certainly not held to be holy. Once Jesus came to us, he helped us to see that all people are equal and that just because a woman is a woman, doesnt mean she should not be respected and venerated for her role as bearer of life and nurturer.
Also it would not make sense for the bible to refer to God as Her when speaking of mary and the birth of Jesus, because Mary was his mother and if he refered to God as Mother, people would confuse the two.
“Which mother are you referring to Jesus?”
In fact we all were created in god’s image, therefore God is all that there is, both male female and otherwise.
The argument that people are not both male and female is incorrect. All of us contain the same emotions and furthermore, all fetuses are female until the male gene is introduced, therefore we all start off being female and then become male. We all posses male and female inside us just as God is both male and female.
If someone chooses to refer to God as female, and that brings them to a closer understanding and relationship with the devine, then so be it.
Her reference should be discussed in class so that all may see another way to veiw their relationship with God.

 

[Darrel]

While we know that God is genderless, he incarnated himself male and prayed to the ‘Father’. Any reference to God as female in my opinion is lacking respect and simple obvious truth. People seem ok with calling God female at times. Ask them if they are willing to call Jesus female. They are one and the same.

-D

 

[rayne100]

Darrel:

While we know that God is genderless, he incarnated himself male and prayed to the ‘Father’. Any reference to God as female in my opinion is lacking respect and simple obvious truth. People seem ok with calling God female at times. Ask them if they are willing to call Jesus female. They are one and the same.

-D

I disagree, Jesus took the form of flesh so that we could relate to him, so that he could relate to us and expeience what we were experiencing . It was impossible for him to be be both male and femal in human form, he had to choose one or the other. In addition to that, he took the form in which he would be most likely to have the opportunity to get his message agross in that time, meaning male.
If he had chosed female during that time, he wouldn’t have had the exposure that he needed. Women were not allowed to study scripture or speak out of turn in those days, he wouldn’t have been taken seriously and would most likely have been stoned to death if he was female, therefore, logically he had to choose male.
The triune God is a divine mystery whereas they are seperate beings but also one.Just becasue Jesus chose male form, doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit is male or female for that matter and neither does it mean that God is. It just means that there is a male aspect of that God.

 

[Darrel]

rayne100:

I disagree, Jesus took the form of flesh so that we could relate to him, so that he could relate to us and expeience what we were experiencing . It was impossible for him to be be both male and femal in human form, he had to choose one or the other. In addition to that, he took the form in which he would be most likely to have the opportunity to get his message agross in that time, meaning male.
If he had chosed female during that time, he wouldn’t have had the exposure that he needed. Women were not allowed to study scripture or speak out of turn in those days, he wouldn’t have been taken seriously and would most likely have been stoned to death if he was female, therefore, logically he had to choose male.
The triune God is a divine mystery whereas they are seperate beings but also one.Just becasue Jesus chose male form, doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit is male or female for that matter and neither does it mean that God is. It just means that there is a male aspect of that God.

You have listed off a bunch of reasons that God did what he based on common sense. What is it all based on? Does God think on our level of common sense? Why did Jesus call God father instead of God? The father is the masculine and we are all the feminine on Earth as the bride. Because the father is the masculine and we are the bride in the feminine it is appropriate for us to call God Father and He. Is this a slap to women? Not at all, we are all the bride.

-D

 

[rayne100]

Darrel:

You have listed off a bunch of reasons that God did what he based on common sense. What is it all based on? Does God think on our level of common sense? Why did Jesus call God father instead of God? The father is the masculine and we are all the feminine on Earth as the bride. Because the father is the masculine and we are the bride in the feminine it is appropriate for us to call God Father and He. Is this a slap to women? Not at all, we are all the bride.

-D

Darell,
I understand what you are saying, however I never stated that this was a degredation of Women or in your words a slap to women. I am just expressing why I do not agree with you. I think bot points are valid, however I was responding to the previous couple of posts where it some one stated that god could not possibley be a woman and we should not call him so.
I disagree and those where my reasons why. We can go back and forth all day on why his did this or why he did that, there are some that I can logically explain and those that I cannot.
But I also disagree with the Bride of God as well, Jesus called God his father becasue he was his father and also to show that he is a parent figure and we his children. To show a parents unconditional love.
He does not call God the husband and us his brides.