The Gender of God

[LucyLight]

Yes, and some Protestants take that line of thought to its logical conclusion and argue as much (here’s a link to a good example: urbanpioneering.com/Volume12/femininemain.htm).

That’s pretty disgusting. There are also some Catholics who twist the bible and church teaching to fit their own agenda (although I think that they are a small minority who are over represented online). I can only imagine what a grave sin it would be to take Christ’s teachings and twist them to oppress people or to further your own agenda that goes against the Church’s teaching.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

That’s pretty disgusting. There are also some Catholics who twist the bible and church teaching to fit their own agenda (although I think that they are a small minority who are over represented online). I can only imagine what a grave sin it would be to take Christ’s teachings and twist them to oppress people or to further your own agenda that goes against the Church’s teaching.

You haven’t addressed the point yet though, and I’m curious to see answers.

 

[Battleaxe]

One, the Western World hardly regards women as equal or symmetrical to men, hence the ballyhoo over treating females as “ladies.” Contemporary society is confused about biological sex and gender correspondence…
…they need to treat those same females as “ladies.”

Whats wrong with calling women "ladies"? Before the West sank into the cess pool, thats what they were called. Its a mark of respect for **Woman.** Radical feminism notwithstanding, she deserves respect! Theres nothing feminine about the extreme feminists!

Gender is largely a social construct…

You better let God know. “…male and female.He created them.” [Genesis 1:27]

But more to your inquiry: The excepted Jesus the three persons of the Trinity are spirit and never took on the matter form of animal human life. The reasons Catholics have long referred to the first person of the Trinity as “God the Father” is because male humans (and females) are said within Catholicism to take on the female role in relation to God. Think of insemination - but in the spiritual sense.

It`s deeper than that.

When it comes to having children, the father is*** the generating principle.***
In the Godhead, the Father has total self-knowledge. His self-knowledge is the Son Whom He generates in eternity: ie the Father is ***the generating Principle ***in the Godhead. So, the male (father) is a reflection of the Father`s Fatherhood…

 

[tobbias88]

The truth of the matter is: God is ineffable - unknowable.

Without Revelation we cannot speak of or describe ‘God’ because as you rightly point out he is ‘outside of Creation’, not of the physical or even spiritual realm as we conceive of it.
All we can say is: *‘God is’ *but even that is debateable since is implies existence and God does not exist the way we know it.

All statements: God is Love/God is allpowerful/God is eternal/ God is Merciful/God is Just / are really meaningless because these are all human attributes.

When Moses ask Him ( not Her) he replied I AM WHO I AM. The Jews being extremely wise people never took it any further than that.

So talking of whether God has gender or sex organs is utterly silly beyond words… You cannot attribute any human qualities or form to God . We do not have the language for it since all our languages are human-based.

Until Revelation and indeed the Incarnation, the concept of God was a very shadowy one indeed.

 

[LucyLight]

You haven’t addressed the point yet though, and I’m curious to see answers.

What point? The OP’s question? See post #27.

 

[LucyLight]

TimeEntrance said,

But more to your inquiry: The excepted Jesus the three persons of the Trinity are spirit and never took on the matter form of animal human life. The reasons Catholics have long referred to the first person of the Trinity as “God the Father” is because male humans (and females) are said within Catholicism to take on the female role in relation to God. Think of insemination - but in the spiritual sense.

It`s deeper than that.

When it comes to having children, the father is*** the generating principle.***
In the Godhead, the Father has total self-knowledge. His self-knowledge is the Son Whom He generates in eternity: ie the Father is ***the generating Principle ***in the Godhead. So, the male (father) is a reflection of the Father`s Fatherhood…

I understand what TimeEntrance is saying here but I’m confused by what your saying. When you refer to the “generating principal” are you refering to Aquinas? Aquinas believed that the male is the principal active cause of the generative process. He believed that semen mixes with menstral blood to create a baby. The semen he believed was the active force in creating the baby. He believed that the active part of the semen remains until the generative process is completed. We know now that the woman releases an egg prior to intercourse and her body is active in the generative process.

Now you can still say that the male is active, because he supplies the sperm, and the female is passive because she receives it. Aquinas however, takes the analogy too far.

Maybe this isn’t what you meant at all, could you please explain?

 

[TimeEntrance]

You better let God know. “…male and female.He created them.” [Genesis 1:27]

I was distinguishing gender from a person’s biological sex, Battle.

Both sociology and Catholicism acknowledges a person’s gender can be the opposite of their sex. Sociology finds it as an amoral issue while Catholicism concludes it to be a sin.

The Catholic view is that a person’s gender should correspond to their sex. An example of people with one biological sex but the opposite gender are transsexuals. Especially pre-op transsexuals.

I was just reading the other day how South Korean men spend a lot of time in front of the mirror applying makeup to their face. South Korean men makeup something like 20% of the global market sales for facial cosmetics.

That’s an example of cultural difference between Anglo-Saxon European men from South Korean men in terms of the masculine gender.

South Korean men are pretty tough too. They have one of the most renowned Marine Corps on earth. Their military as a whole is pretty tough. And I think all their males have to spend some time in the military.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

One, the Western World hardly regards women as equal or symmetrical to men, hence the ballyhoo over treating females as “ladies.” Contemporary society is confused about biological sex and gender correspondence. What I mean by that is that it is utterly contradictory - illogical - to propose females should box males or play American football against males or fight in combat in infantry units to only turn around and tell males they need to treat those same females as “ladies.”

Gender is largely a social construct. Therefore, you can be male but have opposite gender, that of a female. We call males like this at times “sissies.”

My point is if you can not hook, jab, bite, and pull bayonet on a “lady” lest it be immoral, then females ought not be cops or grunts or boxers.

But more to your inquiry: The excepted Jesus the three persons of the Trinity are spirit and never took on the matter form of animal human life. The reasons Catholics have long referred to the first person of the Trinity as “God the Father” is because male humans (and females) are said within Catholicism to take on the female role in relation to God. Think of insemination - but in the spiritual sense.

A number of monks during the Middle Ages wrote very homoerotic literature about themselves in relation to God.

But the role and place of Mary is very unique in Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I would challenge anyone to find her equivalent in any religion on earth. They won’t find it. Not in Buddhism or in the avatars of the one God within Hinduism. Actually, Hinduism probably has female avatars that come the closest to rivaling the Virgin Mary.

Points on the Virgin Mary:

#1. The New Eve (therefore, the salvation of mankind is led and depends on women not men).

#2. An historical woman that was a human person (Jesus was a human but had 2 natures, his personhood was divine not human).

#3. The most perfect human person (female; a she) to ever exist.

#4. The Mother of God. And God came through a woman’s most intimate parts regarded by Orthodox Jews of centuries ago as disgusting (Buddhism also regards the female vagina as sickening and beneath that of enlightened and good men).

#5. She needed no man to have sex with. She was in a certain sense the ultimate feminist ideal. No sex with human men and gives birth to God.

#6. Her titles are numerous.

#7. She brought as many (numerically) Amerindians in Mexico into Catholicism as the number of Europeans that left the Church in the Western European Reformation.

As for female advancement in the Church. That is true to some extent. At some point females to hit a wall. But people misunderstand the “advancements” and those odds for males within the Church. I’ve only known one priest that was ever raised to the office of Bishop. And it’s probably better odds I’ll become the President of the United States than he’ll become the Pope in Rome.

Becoming a nun or priest or monk or brother or even a celibate lay person are not very attractive to most men and women in the world - especially those from developed nations. Let’s see: most All American teenage boys don’t aspire to go through 4 years of college and probably 4 or 5 years of seminary training just to vow poverty (relative poverty), celibacy, and obedience to their Bishop.

Basically, becoming a priest is like an American boy volunteering for the U.S. Army then volunteering for the Army Rangers. The Army Generals and officer corps comes from out the ranks of the Army. Now, if some fat body lay Catholic wants to become the Pope of Rome tell him to do the metaphorical Army Ranger sacrifice. Walk the miles of hell. Until that time he armchair quarterback and complain.

Semper Fi.

Former U.S. Jarhead.

Not true actually (according to Catholicism anyway).

Here’s a passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia to illustrate my point:
•that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary’s integrity, but also causing Christ’s birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that “the Light from Light” proceeded from his mother’s womb as a light shed on the world; that the “power of the Most High” passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that “the body of the Word” formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits.

Link to source:
newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

As the encyclopedia makes clear, Jesus did not leave the womb in the natural human way. He apparently did not even make physical contact with his mother’s vagina on the way out.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

One, the Western World hardly regards women as equal or symmetrical to men, hence the ballyhoo over treating females as “ladies.” Contemporary society is confused about biological sex and gender correspondence. What I mean by that is that it is utterly contradictory - illogical - to propose females should box males or play American football against males or fight in combat in infantry units to only turn around and tell males they need to treat those same females as “ladies.”

Gender is largely a social construct. Therefore, you can be male but have opposite gender, that of a female. We call males like this at times “sissies.”

My point is if you can not hook, jab, bite, and pull bayonet on a “lady” lest it be immoral, then females ought not be cops or grunts or boxers.

But more to your inquiry: The excepted Jesus the three persons of the Trinity are spirit and never took on the matter form of animal human life. The reasons Catholics have long referred to the first person of the Trinity as “God the Father” is because male humans (and females) are said within Catholicism to take on the female role in relation to God. Think of insemination - but in the spiritual sense.

A number of monks during the Middle Ages wrote very homoerotic literature about themselves in relation to God.

But the role and place of Mary is very unique in Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I would challenge anyone to find her equivalent in any religion on earth. They won’t find it. Not in Buddhism or in the avatars of the one God within Hinduism. Actually, Hinduism probably has female avatars that come the closest to rivaling the Virgin Mary.

Points on the Virgin Mary:

#1. The New Eve (therefore, the salvation of mankind is led and depends on women not men).

#2. An historical woman that was a human person (Jesus was a human but had 2 natures, his personhood was divine not human).

#3. The most perfect human person (female; a she) to ever exist.

#4. The Mother of God. And God came through a woman’s most intimate parts regarded by Orthodox Jews of centuries ago as disgusting (Buddhism also regards the female vagina as sickening and beneath that of enlightened and good men).

#5. She needed no man to have sex with. She was in a certain sense the ultimate feminist ideal. No sex with human men and gives birth to God.

#6. Her titles are numerous.

#7. She brought as many (numerically) Amerindians in Mexico into Catholicism as the number of Europeans that left the Church in the Western European Reformation.

As for female advancement in the Church. That is true to some extent. At some point females to hit a wall. But people misunderstand the “advancements” and those odds for males within the Church. I’ve only known one priest that was ever raised to the office of Bishop. And it’s probably better odds I’ll become the President of the United States than he’ll become the Pope in Rome.

Becoming a nun or priest or monk or brother or even a celibate lay person are not very attractive to most men and women in the world - especially those from developed nations. Let’s see: most All American teenage boys don’t aspire to go through 4 years of college and probably 4 or 5 years of seminary training just to vow poverty (relative poverty), celibacy, and obedience to their Bishop.

Basically, becoming a priest is like an American boy volunteering for the U.S. Army then volunteering for the Army Rangers. The Army Generals and officer corps comes from out the ranks of the Army. Now, if some fat body lay Catholic wants to become the Pope of Rome tell him to do the metaphorical Army Ranger sacrifice. Walk the miles of hell. Until that time he armchair quarterback and complain.

Semper Fi.

Former U.S. Jarhead.

How is this statement in any way, matter, or form true?

According to Catholicism you need the Church to get right with God, and only men can lead the Church.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Whats wrong with calling women "ladies"? Before the West sank into the cess pool, thats what they were called. Its a mark of respect for **Woman.** Radical feminism notwithstanding, she deserves respect! Theres nothing feminine about the extreme feminists!

You better let God know. “…male and female.He created them.” [Genesis 1:27]

It`s deeper than that.

When it comes to having children, the father is* the generating principle.*****
In the Godhead, the Father has total self-knowledge. His self-knowledge is the Son Whom He generates in eternity: ie the Father is ***the generating Principle ***in the Godhead. So, the male (father) is a reflection of the Father`s Fatherhood…

Which is why (according to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular) men are more like God, thus only men can be priests.

It makes me glad that I’m not a Christian woman:shrug:

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Which is why (according to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular) men are more like God, thus only men can be priests.

It makes me glad that I’m not a Christian woman:shrug:

Men are more ‘like God?’ Really? Funny, I have not YET seen that "men are more like God, therefore only men can be priests’ given as definitive teaching in the Catholic Church. Exactly what ‘canon law’ number is this and where can I find it in the catechism?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

How is this statement in any way, matter, or form true?

According to Catholicism you need the Church to get right with God, and only men can lead the Church.

The Church is traditionally referred to in the feminine.

 

[Battleaxe]

The truth of the matter is: God is ineffable - unknowable.
Without Revelation we cannot speak of or describe ‘God’ because as you rightly point out he is ‘outside of Creation’, not of the physical or even spiritual realm as we conceive of it.
All we can say is: *‘God is’ *but even that is debateable since is implies existence and God does not exist the way we know it.

That doesn`t stop us from exploring, digging.

When Moses ask Him ( not Her) he replied I AM WHO I AM. The Jews being extremely wise people never took it any further than that.

Because they had insufficient “data”.

So talking of whether God has gender or sex organs is utterly silly beyond words… You cannot attribute any human qualities or form to God.

BUT, we should be able to see God-like qualities in Man, a reflection anyway. And we can.

Until Revelation and indeed the Incarnation, the concept of God was a very shadowy one indeed.

True, but Scripture, especially the New Testament, has given us enough to work on, and to go deeper. By using our God-given intellects, we`ve gone a worthwhile distance.

We were told that the Spirit of Truth would lead us into all truth, and He`s still doing it.

In his book “Theology and Sanity”, Frank Sheed mentions Our Lord`s words about sending the Holy Spirit, and the dwelling of the Father and Himself in a person:

Heaven knows what His hearers made of all this as they heard the words come from His lips. What He was revealing was the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. He revealed it because He wanted us to know it. We must try.
[Emphasis added]

Elsewhere he says that God the Lover wants to be known by His beloved…and not wanting to know more about God shows a lack of concern, even a callousness.

Later on:

But the prime question about a doctrine is not what does it do to us,*** but is it so.*** The doctrine of the Trinity is reality about God.
…let us keep hold of it and mentally live with it, for it is reality, and whether we perceive its effects on us or not, reality nourishes. And nothing else does.

…

I was distinguishing gender from a person’s biological sex, Battle.

i knew what you were getting at, but the truth is: those states aren`t normal. The normal way is male with masculine outlook and impulses, and female with feminine outlook and (name removed by moderator)ulses.
The exceptions are not the rule. The exceptions are due to the Fall.
…

Which is why (according to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular) men are more like God, thus only men can be priests.

It makes me glad that I’m not a Christian woman:shrug:

Thanks be to God, thats wrong. Women cant be priests because, among other things, the Church is the Bride of Christ.
Women have their own complementary role, eg cradles and nourishers of new life. Until this present, depraved age, motherhood was revered.

Wisdom is often expressed as feminine. Have a look in Scripture.

 

[LucyLight]

Not true actually (according to Catholicism anyway).

Here’s a passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia to illustrate my point:
•that the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost extended to the birth of Jesus Christ, not merely preserving Mary’s integrity, but also causing Christ’s birth or external generation to reflect his eternal birth from the Father in this, that “the Light from Light” proceeded from his mother’s womb as a light shed on the world; that the “power of the Most High” passed through the barriers of nature without injuring them; that “the body of the Word” formed by the Holy Ghost penetrated another body after the manner of spirits.

Link to source:
newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm

As the encyclopedia makes clear, Jesus did not leave the womb in the natural human way. He apparently did not even make physical contact with his mother’s vagina on the way out.

This isn’t dogma, just the opinions of some. I personally have never bought into this thinking. I think the idea is that birth pains are the result of sin, so Mary must of been spared that. Another reason I’ve heard is somehow her virginity is tied to having an intact hymen. We know now that girls hymens can break very easily from falling, and other natural occurances. I hope that part of the rational wasn’t based on the opinion that some parts of a woman are vile. Makes men who think this look a little suspicous. Anyways, this is way of topic but I just wanted to clear it up that this is a teaching that has to be believed.

 

[Battleaxe]

I understand what TimeEntrance is saying here but I’m confused by what your saying. When you refer to the “generating principal” are you refering to Aquinas? [No] Aquinas believed that the male is the princip***al active cause ***of the generative process.

Maybe this isn’t what you meant at all, could you please explain?

Be careful with your spelling. The word was “principLE”, not “principAL”. Theres a vast difference. You could substitute "operator". Theres probably a theological word better than “principle”, but not being a theologian, i don`t know it.

I think the idea is that birth pains are the result of sin, so Mary must of been spared that. Another reason I’ve heard is somehow ***her virginity is tied to having an intact hymen. ***
.

im sure thats what it means. Nothing was violated. Our Lady remained a virgin before, DURING and after the birth of her Son.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

You realize that female bikers sometime have their hymens broken, right?

I too have never bought the theory that Mary suffered from no birth pains.

 

[LucyLight]

Be careful with your spelling. The word was “principLE”, not “principAL”. Theres a vast difference. You could substitute "operator". Theres probably a theological word better than “principle”, but not being a theologian, i don`t know it.

im sure thats what it means. Nothing was violated. Our Lady remained a virgin before, DURING and after the birth of her Son.

That is funny and I’m the worst at differentiating between principle and principal I probably mix them up all the time. But trust me, I can’t just pull up quotes from the Summa off the top of my head. I got that spelling from here,

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum129.htm

scroll down to Reply to Objection 4

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The Church is traditionally referred to in the feminine.

And vessels are often referred to as she or her.

So what?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You realize that female bikers sometime have their hymens broken, right?

I too have never bought the theory that Mary suffered from no birth pains.

It does make the whole thing seem a lot more unnatural and sterile.

 

[Battleaxe]

You realize that female bikers sometime have their hymens broken, right?

There were no Harleys back then. Mary was also special.

I too have never bought the theory that Mary suffered from no birth pains.

Before, DURING and after is “de fide”. Whats so difficult about believing that Jesus birth was accomplished in a miraculous way?

Fr. Z`s no dope:
wdtprs.com/blog/2006/11/trent-nativity-did-the-blessed-virgin-experience-labor-pains/