The philosophy of God's "gender"

[tonyrey]

Well God has no gender because He is pure spirit. As far as I know He is masculine. In fact there is nothing more masculine than God is. There is such as thing as cosmic masculinity and femininity, which is why many languages have masculine and feminine nouns because they recognized these things in reality.

These terms are metaphorical. Symbolism has no bearing on reality.

Peter Kreeft actually did a very nice job of explaining the philosophy behind this in his discussion on women priests. Yes, it’s true that Christ referred to God as Father and that is all we need to know. However there is a reason why God is appropriately called “Father” and not “Mother.” God plays the masculine role in relation to humanity which plays the feminine role. Why is that? Think about the relationship that God, who is Truth, has with humanity. Truth invades the human mind, which forms a “conception” of that reality (isn’t it interesting that we actually talk about how we have a “concept” or something, almost like a physical conception in the womb). The mental conception resembles the Father in that it reflects reality and resembles the mother in that it is mental.

I think this is one of the reasons why Catholicism has a male priesthood. The symbolism is incredibly important. We are supposed to allow God to enter our lives and form new life in us, not the other way around. So God is neither male nor female, but He is masculine. Most of the ancient pagan religions had the gods playing a sort of feminine role to humans in that humans were supposed to seek out the gods and initiate communion with them. The ancient Jews were the first to say the exact opposite.

Symbolism has no bearing on reality. God has no gender and is neither masculine nor feminine in any respect. The Creator transcends all human categories…

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I wouldn’t be to surprised if we refer to God as a “father” b/c of the ancient association of him with various other “sky father” like deities.In Catholicism we all know that the notion of an important “sky”/heavenly woman goes to Mary.Never assuming such that things are so straight forward when trying to understand the nature of an omnibenevolent and almighty creator that what we say about him applies so readily,is something I always keep in mind.This goes for the usual gender designation that we give him of being male.Can anyone delve into the philosophy of we so strongly associate male features to him rolleyes: yeah I know the Holy trinity has a part in this).

Obviously God is named Father analogically.
However why not “Mother”?
Apart from the fact already averted to (ancient society was patriachal, male chauvenist) I suggest it is based on the primary experience of God as Creator.

Fathers (who have the complete “seed”) are clearly the biological source of human life so far as ancient biology was concerned.

 

[Starrsmother]

These terms are metaphorical. Symbolism has no bearing on reality.

Symbolism has no bearing on reality. God has no gender and is neither masculine nor feminine in any respect. The Creator transcends all human categories…

Just as sidebar, y’know there was a time not so long ago, when I took a bit of a feminist attitude that things like referring to God as the Father and the fact that only men are priests, for instance, were sexist and I’d have argued the matter with anyone. Now of course, in reality, we know that God is a spirit and has no sex–but yet the idea of picturing God as a man would have ended in my arguing the unfairness of such a comparison. My thinking was in great part because I had to work so hard all my life to “make it” and to be considered an equal in work when there were men who seemed to have it easier than I because of the fact that they were born with a different sex organ than myself. Additionally, I have 5 kids–2 girls and 3 boys–and obviously, I want my girls to have each and every opportunity that my boys have–because my girls are just as intelligent and able as my boys are. So, i told myself that my “fight” was for my daughters even more than myself in these issues. Now don’t get me wrong–I still firmly believe in women’s issues such as equal pay for equal work. However, as I returned to my Catholic roots and began to strive to really become a true Catholic in all aspects of my life–not simply to go to Mass on Sunday and let the rest fall where it may–I recognized something about myself and feminism–as we think of it today–that changed my views.

Why do women (especially) get wrapped up in what sex is attributed to something and why does it seem so important in today’s world? I think it’s a sin of pride that somehow Satan has managed to present to us today wrapped up neatly in an attractive package that appears as a genuine concern for all people being treated fairly. Another words, certainly as Christians we cannot think it just for women, blacks or any group to be treated as second rate. By the way, I’m not sure that this is the right thread to say this on and if I shouldn’t say it here, I apologize.

However,in scripture, St. Paul warns us not to get wrapped up in jealousy by what gift God gives to someone else. This warning also does kind of fit in not only with this particular thread, but also with this Sunday’s gospel. To me, this proves that it is right and respectful to think of God as the Father–as we are told that in marriage it is the man who is to be the head of the nuclear family. This has nothing to do with a woman being less than a man in any way–only that this is a gift that God chose to give to men and He chooses to give different and equally important jobs to women–just not being the head of the nuclear family. (I hope I’m making sense here.) So, if I follow this line of reasoning through, then God the Father is the head of everything and I need to accept that visualization and respect it and not be prideful in thinking that we should say God the mother or some such. And, by the same logic, why should I feel cheated because as a woman I will never be a priest even had I been given the calling? God the FATHER has decided on this plan and in humility, I just need to get over myself and accept it!! We think of God the father as the Father because this is how God Himself described the position and relationship to mankind–even in Jesus’ own word on earth! Am I way off base here?

 

[balto]

These terms are metaphorical. Symbolism has no bearing on reality.

Symbolism has no bearing on reality. God has no gender and is neither masculine nor feminine in any respect. The Creator transcends all human categories…

I said that God has no gender, but He is masculine. The terms male and female refer to biological gender and are not synonymous with masculine and feminine. Yes, the Creator transcends all human categories as I never said that God is like a father or like a man. It’s more appropriate to speak of human males being like fathers. Christ specifically revealed His relationship to the First Person of the Trinity as a Father-Son relationship, not Mother-Daughter or Parent-Child or any combination of the preceding terms. He chose to be incarnated as a man and not a woman. He instituted an all-male priesthood even though he had many devout female disciples that many times seemed more faithful than the males. How is this not masculine?

 

[balto]

Obviously God is named Father analogically.
However why not “Mother”?
Apart from the fact already averted to (ancient society was patriachal, male chauvenist) I suggest it is based on the primary experience of God as Creator.

Fathers (who have the complete “seed”) are clearly the biological source of human life so far as ancient biology was concerned.

I disagree with the part about ancient society assigning masculine terms to God because it was patriarchal. Yes, the society was patriarchal but God is not bound by human customs and Christ personally chose the masculine terms. It’s not like Christ was afraid of offending cultural sensibilities (see John 6), so the fact that He specifically used the masculine terms is significant. Not only that but many of the Gentile religions had goddesses and priestesses so it would have been happily received by many people at the time.

I do agree with the second part however . God is the source of spiritual life and offers it to humanity who either receives or rejects it. It’s the same thing with Truth. We take it or leave it, but do not put out our own Truth. Hence the reason that all people are spiritually feminine even as they are either physically masculine or feminine.

 

[tonyrey]

I disagree with the part about ancient society assigning masculine terms to God because it was patriarchal. Yes, the society was patriarchal but God is not bound by human customs and Christ personally chose the masculine terms. It’s not like Christ was afraid of offending cultural sensibilities (see John 6), so the fact that He specifically used the masculine terms is significant. Not only that but many of the Gentile religions had goddesses and priestesses so it would have been happily received by many people at the time.

Jesus was not Christ was afraid of offending cultural sensibilities but He was realistic. If He had referred to God as our Mother they would have stoned Him to death on the spot.

I do agree with the second part however . God is the source of spiritual life and offers it to humanity who either receives or rejects it. It’s the same thing with Truth. We take it or leave it, but do not put out our own Truth. Hence the reason that all people are spiritually feminine even as they are either physically masculine or feminine.

This argument seems tailored to a preconceived conclusion! It implies that our quest for truth is sexual…

 

[balto]

Jesus was not Christ was afraid of offending cultural sensibilities but He was realistic. If He had referred to God as our Mother they would have stoned Him to death on the spot.

They tried to throw Him off a cliff when He declared that the prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled in Him and then had to pass through their midst to get away from them. I don’t think He was too worried about being stoned since He’s God and can do whatever He wants. If Christ did not mean Father, then why did He say Father instead of either Mother or a gender-neutral term such as Parent? Christ would not have been deceptive to us by saying “Father” when He meant something else since it’s against His nature to lie.

This argument seems tailored to a preconceived conclusion! It implies that our quest for truth is sexual…

No, the ultimate end of our existence is to accept the love of God and return it to Him. The point I’m trying to get across is that masculinity and femininity are not solely physically sexual terms. It can mean “giver of life” and “receiver of life” which is the relationship that God has with humanity. Am I making any sense here? The OP was asking about a philosophical understanding of why God’s identification with the masculine is significant and I am trying to offer an argument for why it is important.

 

[Starrsmother]

I disagree with the part about ancient society assigning masculine terms to God because it was patriarchal. Yes, the society was patriarchal but God is not bound by human customs and Christ personally chose the masculine terms. It’s not like Christ was afraid of offending cultural sensibilities (see John 6), so the fact that He specifically used the masculine terms is significant. Not only that but many of the Gentile religions had goddesses and priestesses so it would have been happily received by many people at the time.

I do agree with the second part however . God is the source of spiritual life and offers it to humanity who either receives or rejects it. It’s the same thing with Truth. We take it or leave it, but do not put out our own Truth. Hence the reason that all people are spiritually feminine even as they are either physically masculine or feminine.

One other error that Blue Horizon makes is that the male has the “complete seed”–I’d like to see any male make a baby without a woman’s egg contribution. Even in ancient times, they had to have been bright enough to figure this one out. We think of God as masculine because, if for no other reason, that is the descriptive reference that Jesus Himself used.