No, you can't call God mother!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ignatius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to Leviticus 12, there also seems to be a view in the Old Testament that women are less pure than men:
If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. 3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. 5 If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days.
So if a woman has a female child, she remains impure longer than if she has a male child. As the commentary in my translation says, “One suspects a general predisposition of the culture to see the female as a potential source of impurity.” :eek:
 
God is genderless, of course. He just IS. However, Jesus instructed us to refer to him as “the Father,” so I think to refer to him in the feminine is totally wrong. The Church, Christ’s Bride, is our Mother.
 
Doesn’t matter either way, but Genesis 3:16 probably comes into play.
“… multiply your [woman’s] sorrows …” Which implies sorrows existed before the fall, which probably means a monthly cycle, which means Eve was periodically unclean before the fall, and, male and female both being in God’s image [Genesis 1:27], would make God have uncleanness, at least some of the time.

It does matter.
 
“… multiply your [woman’s] sorrows …” Which implies sorrows existed before the fall, which probably means a monthly cycle, which means Eve was periodically unclean before the fall, and, male and female both being in God’s image [Genesis 1:27], would make God have uncleanness, at least some of the time.

It does matter.
We are not created in the image of God through any of our physical attributes. God is pure spirit. He has no physical characteristics, except for those that He took on Himself through the Incarnation of Jesus. We reflect the image of God through our souls, the spiritual part of all mankind, which is what separates us from the animals and makes us more like God.

As far as your interpretation of the implications of that phrase from Genesis, I think we should look at the entire passage surrounding it for a better understanding of it, in context.
[16] To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. [17] And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. [18] Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. [19] In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.First of all, we have the part you reference, “I will multiply thy sorrows”. The only sorrow that Eve ever experienced in the Garden was of her own making, which was her sorrow for sinning against God by listening to the serpent. Later in the chapter, the Garden is referred to as the “paradise of pleasure”, so there was no pain or sorrow in it before the fall.

For her punishment, God says that in sorrow she will bring forth children. She will also be made subject to her husband, from that point forward. She was the one that decided to eat the fruit and enticed Adam to do the same. So, I think that was a very fitting penance for her sin, because she showed that she was not capable of making sound decisions on her own. She made her decision based on her ‘feelings’, instead of using her ability to reason, and Adam followed her lead.

But, Adam was also given the equally heavy penance of having to work hard to provide for his family, by tilling the land. That would not be easy because of the thorns and thistles that would grow on the earth due to the curse of his own sin against God, so that would also make it very difficult for him.

Neither one of them was given any preferential treatment, nor were any of their punishments unjust. They both got what they deserved.
 
Another reference is Deuteronomy 32:18: which is why in most languages–Latin and the Romance languages, Greek, and Hebrew certainly–nouns that have nothing to do with sexuality (a table, a book) still have genders.
Minor quibble. In Greek, there is a third gender, called “neuter.” Both of your examples («το τραπέζι», «το βιβλίο») are neuter and if you said that either of them had sexuality, I don’t think that’s really an applicable question.
 
God, of course, has no gender. However, I think it’s worth it to note that God made MAN in his own image; he man WOMAN from the RIB of man. Therefore, it seems IF God had a gender, it would be MALE. Definitely.
 
So…I’m guessing you don’t want women ordained as priests and bishops? Good thing I’m becoming a chemist instead :))))
 
No, I, personally, would not accept a woman priest. A Roman Catholic priest “stands in” for Christ. Christ was a never-married male.

I don’t believe women are inferior to men. I’m a woman myself and a fifth-year theology student. I just would not accept women priests, but if that day would ever come, it would be a LONG time off.
 
So…I’m guessing you don’t want women ordained as priests and bishops? Good thing I’m becoming a chemist instead :))))
It doesn’t matter what we on this Forum want…The Catholic Church has the authority to make the call !
 
It doesn’t matter what we on this Forum want…The Catholic Church has the authority to make the call !
Actually, Pope St. John Paul II said that the Church DOESN’T have the authority to make the call on the issue of womenpriests - they’re impossible in God’s eyes, and such, the Church cannot even ponder the issue.
 
No, I, personally, would not accept a woman priest. A Roman Catholic priest “stands in” for Christ. Christ was a never-married male.

I don’t believe women are inferior to men. I’m a woman myself and a fifth-year theology student. I just would not accept women priests, but if that day would ever come, it would be a LONG time off.
Absolutely! I’m a woman, too. And, I would have a serious issue with the Church if women were ever allowed to be Priests.
It doesn’t matter what we on this Forum want…The Catholic Church has the authority to make the call !
Actually, Pope St. John Paul II said that the Church DOESN’T have the authority to make the call on the issue of womenpriests - they’re impossible in God’s eyes, and such, the Church cannot even ponder the issue.
Exactly! It can never change because Jesus was a man, not a woman. So, I am perfectly happy with the situation remaining exactly as it is, now. A woman could never stand in the shoes Jesus wears.
 
Absolutely! I’m a woman, too. And, I would have a serious issue with the Church if women were ever allowed to be Priests.

Exactly! It can never change because Jesus was a man, not a woman. So, I am perfectly happy with the situation remaining exactly as it is, now. A woman could never stand in the shoes Jesus wears.
Agreed totally but off topic
 
Agreed totally but off topic
I’m not all that sure that it is off topic. The point is that Jesus is the God-Man. He taught us to call God “our” Father, when He taught us how to pray. This is also why it’s appropriate for us to call a Priest “Father”, because he stands in persona Christi. Whenever we see a Priest, we should always see him as the true representative of Jesus (God) on earth. So, this all ties back to the original subject, because Jesus explicitly taught us to call God, Father, not “mother”.
 
I’m not all that sure that it is off topic. The point is that Jesus is the God-Man. He taught us to call God “our” Father, when He taught us how to pray. This is also why it’s appropriate for us to call a Priest “Father”, because he stands in persona Christi. Whenever we see a Priest, we should always see him as the true representative of Jesus (God) on earth. So, this all ties back to the original subject, because Jesus explicitly taught us to call God, Father, not “mother”.
We have to envisage God using our limited capability. Personally I can’t conceive of how three persons in one God is possible but I believe it totally. I also know that we are taught that God the Holy Spirit is the love between father and son. How is that person of the godhead a man or male in fact that Person of the trinity is often represented as a dove. God is three persons. One person was male human and God. The other persons we can’t begin to understand and as spirits they are not restricted to base human genders however much we have to use human pronouns to make any sense of it
 
And, since Christ’s Bride is the Church he established, we call the Church “Holy Mother.”
 
Are we forgetting something? If the Anglicans want to call God “Mother” and “She” then what is the devil? Is he now the evil mother-in-law?

I find the Anglican Church now absolutely outrageous with some of the things it’s coming out with, how can a masculine notion of God be offensive I don’t even know, are they going to turn Christ into a woman next?

It’s as if they’re making a sect for feminism - the CoE is a Church which adapts with secular society and changes with changing opinions this is wrong because truth cannot change or adapt
 
One of the things that makes the Catholic Church so beautiful is the fact that it is a Church for the ages, not a church for “this age.” It is the Church that Christ, himself, handed to his apostles and their successors for safekeeping.

I know some things have changed, but not the things Christ instituted. Those are immutable. We still baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” etc.

It is far more important to worship God in the Church Christ, himself founded than to pander to the newest craze of the masses today. If that makes us “out of step” then so be it. There are times when it is good to be out of step.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top