Is it insulting to refer to God as "herself"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter O_Green_World
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

O_Green_World

Guest
Hey guys.

I’m sure any of you who have seen it are probably thinking of the religious comedy movie “Dogma” right now. Anyway, is it a sin to think of God as a woman? I mean, he/she really doesn’t have a gender at all, and it doesn’t make any less sense than thinking of him/her as a man. Your opinions?
 
Yes it is, because God became a man. Therefore Jesus Christ was man and took on human suffering. We call God a He to show his Fatherhood over all of us. To show his divine authority. To call God a her would be insisting that God is a woman, which is a fallacy. I would keep my distance from whoever told you that you could call God a her.
 
O Green World,

I would say yes. In Heaven, the relationship between Christ (the second Person of the Trinity) and the Church will be the fulfillment or completion or “real thing” of the relationship between husband and wife in an earthly marriage, with Christ filling the husband’s role. That is masculine and is not referred to by “herself.”
  • Liberian
 
O Green World:
Hey guys.

I’m sure any of you who have seen it are probably thinking of the religious comedy movie “Dogma” right now. Anyway, is it a sin to think of God as a woman? I mean, he/she really doesn’t have a gender at all, and it doesn’t make any less sense than thinking of him/her as a man. Your opinions?
Click to expand...
It’s okay, as long as you do the same thing for the devil.

I mean, we all know about Satan. She is the Mother of Lies, the Princess of the Air, the Old Dragonness seeking whom she may devour.

And all her demonesses are bad, too.

Besides, Satan is also known as Lucifer, so I guess we could call her Lucy for short.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
Yes it is, because God became a man. Therefore Jesus Christ was man and took on human suffering. We call God a He to show his Fatherhood over all of us. To show his divine authority. To call God a her would be insisting that God is a woman, which is a fallacy. I would keep my distance from whoever told you that you could call God a her.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make sense. If calling God “He” doesn’t mean that God is a man (which it certainly doesn’t, though God did become a man), then calling God “She” doesn’t mean that God is a woman.

Edwin
 
Well as stated before Jesus was male, so that part of the trinity would diffentetly be P.O.ed if you called him a woman.

Then there is God who is the Father, which was stated many times in scritpure, tradition and on wards so I don’t think that it would be accurate to call that part of the Trinity a woman either.

Someone else would have to address that about the Holy Spirit. I am not sure and I will leave it at I don’t know.
 
Well, if there’s a father, then there has to be a mother.

And if there’s a son, then there’s a good chance that there’s a daughter.

(I’m sure some Mormons will chime in soon.:D)
 
Hmm, another question, apart from whether it is objectively wrong to refer to God as ‘She’ (I’m not sure but I think it may be), is this. Why would someone refer to God as ‘She’ anyway? What exactly is their motivation, etc, and is there possibly something wrong with that?

The thing is, everyone refers to God as ‘He’. If someone referred to God as ‘She’ they would be doing it deliberately, trying to make some kind of point (unless it was just being silly, like in a comedy movie or something). If someone chooses to go against the norm of calling God ‘He’, I think chances are that they are trying to display a belief that God is a woman, which would be wrong. Or they are trying to say that women are better than men, or something else silly like that, I don’t know.
 
The Bible says that Jesus answered the Apostles request for how to pray to God, “Our Father…”, and that sums it up.

Bud
 
40.png
Contarini:
That doesn’t make sense. If calling God “He” doesn’t mean that God is a man (which it certainly doesn’t, though God did become a man), then calling God “She” doesn’t mean that God is a woman.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Uh - Episcopalian… Women priestesses over there I heard.

Anyway God is a “He” because Jesus Christ is a “He”, and no one but a “He” can offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as HE DID.

Calling God a “She” is promoted by those who want female priestesses, we know their agenda.

Ken
 
It’s important to distinguish between sex and gender. Sex is something purely physical–being either a male or a female. Only in His Incarnation as Jesus was God ever a male.

Gender, on the other hand, is not physical. It refers to personality, and the quality of being either masculine or feminine. And in reality, it is not a black and white distinction; all people have some degree of both, although one’s dominant gender is usually aligned with their sex.

As far as God is concerned, the Father is the Father because He is very much what we consider masculine. The son is both male and masculine, of course. The Holy Spirit, as far as I know is never personified in the way the Father and Son are. Personally, I consider the Holy Spirit to be very complementary to the Father and Son… His power is more subtle, more covert, and more, well, spiritual. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are not as easy to grasp as those of the Father (the gift of life and Creation) and the Son (the gift of sacrifice and Himself). The Holy Spirit is like the dark sky behind the stars… invisible but always there, always underlying and enveloping. And the complement of masculine is feminine.

Actually, I think this idea is very useful in explaining the Trinity and the divine love that binds the three Persons. Love, by its very nature, must always be directed toward an other–self love is not true love. If we begin with the Father, He is Himself. The Son is an other by virtue of the fact that unlike the Father, He is destined to have an incarnate, human, mortal nature in addition to His divine, spiritual, immortal nature. The Holy Spirit is also an other by virtue of posessing a more feminine personality. Because each Person is an other in relation to the other two, they are capable of complete and perfect love for one another.

Does that mean the Holy Spirit is female? No, because, how can a spirit be male or female? Do I have a problem with calling the Holy Spirit “He” even in spite of His more feminine personality? No, because the Holy Spirit is a personal being, and deserves a personal pronoun. (The pronoun “It” would be far more insulting than either “He” or “She”!) It only makes sense, as we refer to the other two Persons as “He.” To do otherwise would impose too much artificial separation and other-ness upon the Persons, I think, damaging the integrity of God’s One-ness.

I can understand girls and women wanting to identify with God as female. I found it a problem in my own life and development at times–how to relate to a “He,” how to reconcile that I am in Him and He is in me, even though I am a she. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to appreciate the element of complementariness, as much with God as with men. In a way, I feel a much stronger bond with God than I imagine I might if I were a man. But ultimately, in our true existence, we females aren’t going to be female either (although we might remain feminine, I don’t know). Things will be much simpler then! 🙂
 
I suppose I would be more embarassed for the person referring to God as “she” than I would be insulted. It’s sophomoric intellectualism at best.
 
Consider the following from Chapter 4 of Deuteronomy. “You saw no form at all on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire. Be strictly on your guard, therefore, not to degrade yourselves by fashioning an idol to represent any figure, whether it be the form of a man or a woman…”

Scripture, and Church teaching indicate that God, in God’s essence, is neither male nor female. Or perhaps it might be argued that God is both male and female, though not one more than the other.

Being human, we find it difficult to relate to such an abstract idea, so we do use metaphors to try and relate to God. Jesus tells us to call God “Father”. In light of the scripture from Deuteronomy, I don’t think Jesus was trying to impress on his followers that God is male but that God has strength and compassion. In a patriarchal society, a loving father was probably the best single metaphor available to those living in that society.

Elsewhere in the old testament, Wisdom (one significant aspect of God) is called “She” many times in an extended metaphor. Jesus refers to himself as a “mother hen” when talking about how he feels about those who reject his message.

In Chapter 22 of Matthew, during the hypothetical discussion of the women with 7 husbands, Jesus points out that, in the end, we leave behind much if not all of gender differences and live like “angels in heaven” (assuming we make it there at all)

I am sure God is not insulted by being referred to as “she” It seems as though the metaphor of “Father” will likely be the predominant one in our faith but it seems reasonable to me that at times a metaphor of Mother, or even Lover (see the book of Wisdom) might be beneficial to one seeking God’s kingdom.

-Jim
 
40.png
kleary:
Uh - Episcopalian… Women priestesses over there I heard.

Anyway God is a “He” because Jesus Christ is a “He”, and no one but a “He” can offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as HE DID.

Calling God a “She” is promoted by those who want female priestesses, we know their agenda.

Ken
Click to expand...
As you so perceptively note, I belong to a church that ordains both men and women.

That really doesn’t address the question. I’m happy to debate women’s ordination–which at least among us is a far less controversial question than the issue of how we name God. (In other words, it’s not that female pronouns are promoted by those who want to ordain women, but that some who believe in women’s ordination also go on to use female pronouns.) If you base an argument against female language on the male-only priesthood, you will not get very far with me.

I’m not one of those people who wants to use totally “inclusive” language for God. Breaking the question down into the persons of the Trinity, I think a case can be made for calling the Holy Spirit “she,” but I’m totally against messing with traditional terminology for the Father and the Son. Whether one could call the Godhead as a whole “she” I’m not sure. I’m unwilling to say that this would be heretical, but it isn’t something I’m very comfortable with.

With that out of the way, it’s dubious to claim that God is “he” because Jesus is “he.” That would seem to imply that women cannot be saved. We are saved by participating in the divine nature through Jesus, who is both God and man. If the “man” in that sentence means “male” as opposed to “human,” then Jesus’ incarnation is of no avail for the salvation of women. Or if women can be saved, they can be saved as the non-human creation is saved–through men. I think this is a heretical conclusion. Therefore, I reject your premise. When we say that Jesus saves us by becoming “man,” we are saying that Jesus became human. Of course the human being He became was male. But that is accidental, not essential. If it was essential, then you need to explain how women can be saved through the mediation of a man.

This part of the argument is relevant for the women’s ordination issue as well (the above is the main reason why I believe in women’s ordination). However, there is a broader issue. The fact that Jesus became human does not mean that the divine essence is human. To say that the divine essence is human is to commit heresy. Therefore, the fact that Jesus became man/human does not mean that we can say “God is a human being.” While that would be correct in a certain sense, it would be misleading and imprecise. The divine nature exists beyond the limitations of the human being Jesus of Nazareth, even as it is fully united to the human nature of Jesus in one divine Person.

Therefore, your argument remains inconclusive, and the question remains open.

Edwin
 
O Green World:
Hey guys.

I’m sure any of you who have seen it are probably thinking of the religious comedy movie “Dogma” right now. Anyway, is it a sin to think of God as a woman? I mean, he/she really doesn’t have a gender at all, and it doesn’t make any less sense than thinking of him/her as a man. Your opinions?
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think so. God can’t be that petty. However, why would one do that?
 
O Green World:
Hey guys.

I’m sure any of you who have seen it are probably thinking of the religious comedy movie “Dogma” right now. Anyway, is it a sin to think of God as a woman? I mean, he/she really doesn’t have a gender at all, and it doesn’t make any less sense than thinking of him/her as a man. Your opinions?
Click to expand...
Well since G-d decided to reveal himself as a Father figure. Why would you want to change that?
If G-d wanted to be addressed as a Mother figure he could have done so. He didn’t, so I won’t.

I think this gets covered by JPII’s theology of the body somewhere.
Someone more familiar with it could expound I believe.
 
Makes ya wonder the real reason why “they” got rid of the Feast of the Circumcision.
 
40.png
Contarini:
That doesn’t make sense. If calling God “He” doesn’t mean that God is a man (which it certainly doesn’t, though God did become a man), then calling God “She” doesn’t mean that God is a woman.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top