There is no such thing as masculine and feminine traits. The only difference between male and female is the body in gender. And God does not have a pair of breasts or a vagina. God is going to look like one not begotten of women. God does not contain the traits of his creation because his body transcends creation. It is true that our image will be in resemblance to his but his body is glory and holiness, all of which is beyond our own image.
Do you believe masculinity is more Godly then (i.e. better)?
Would you please clarify? God is immaterial and does not have a body.
The Church teaches that God is not male. The Catechism (239) states:
Good Points! I agree. male
Then you disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches.
well, there are such things as masculine and feminine traits, in fact, these traits are what make us male and female. otherwise, a women could become a priest if she had a sex change. gender goes beyond our body. it is in our minds. masculine traits are generaly associated with giving, while feminine triats are generally associated with recieving. again this goes beyond sex and the physical body. anyway, God is either asexual or androgynous. maybe male, but theres absolutely no way he is female. so in order of likelihood as follows:
No. God is beyond such distinctions, as the Church teaches. The CCC (239) states, “We ought therefore to recall that **God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. **He is neither man nor woman: he is God.”
its hard to wrap ones mind around a concept like that lol.
Male and female,God made both,designed to complement each other,equal ,though different.
its more like the other way around, since God knew that the middle east was a patriarchal society, he presented himself as “the father”, God spoke to the people in a language they understood. God presented himself and his laws in a way that the people could relate to him. as for the rest of your post, its just non sense, im sorry to be so blunt. but what gives you the idea that conservatives want a male only society? when in the past there have been queens that have ruled the nation by themselves, second, you have a false premise that men and women are “equal”. this is not true, men and women are different, thus they have different roles in society. this is why both conservatives and liberals have a faulty worldview.
I meant that to believe that a thing has no sex, and to then address it in sexual-specific terms, and argue about which sex it should be, can in no way be thought to be a reflection on reality, but rather an attempt to reconcile contradictory beliefs: the need for God to be a spirit (since we cannot see him) and the need for him to have a sex (since we do, and it is important to us).
we dont know everything from the get go. we research, then we formulate hypothesis, many times that hypothesis is wrong, so then we formulate another one. for example, 40 years ago neuro scientists believed that brain cells cannot regenerate, but now new research has proven otherwise. so does that mean the brain doesnt exist either?
to give you a few examples, the abstract world of numbers and forms, time, sentience, conscoiusness, etc
I have no problems observing those and testing them in empirical ways.
really? so then can you p(name removed by moderator)oint the area of the brain responsible for consciousness? and no its not the cortex, this is just associated with conscousness, but neuro-scientists have still not found a direct link. how about sentience? do you know what part of the brain that lies in?