Why is God refered to as He?

[edwest2]

Where angels fear to tread…

Though our God is not male or female, He chose the male form as Jesus Christ, who referred to our father in heaven.

The feminists are simply loking for “teachers” who will make a case for their anti-family agenda. They will not be able to argue the family and the ordained roles of the mother and father out of existence.

God bless,
Ed

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I personally find it difficult to imagine God as being one sex or the other. God is infinite and complete, right? Not this or that. I think the terminolgy is used to make people comfortable, to give them an image they can relate to. True, Jesus did come as a man but I think that was simply because women were virtually ignored at that time. Mary was his mother - being born requires a mom, so he had to have a “father”. Yes, this followed the tradition of God being male in the OT, but as I said at the beginning, I don’t take this to literally mean that God is a man.

Sure. Since God is by all agreements ungendered he is neither male nor female, yet at the time of patriarchal Judaism, it would be pretty much unlikely that a monotheistic God would be described as other than He. It persists to this day. Some people get virtually apoplectic at the mere use of the word She, yet of course they admit that God is pure spirit and not gendered. So I 'm always constrained to understand the fuss.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I know we worship one God but the Godhead is made up of three divine persons.

1 person = “He”.

More than 1 = “They”.

You are trying to use finite human language to describe and understand the infinite. The Trinity is a mystery of faith. We cannot explain it. We cannot explain it because it is a mystery. God revealed himself to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But there is only one God. , thus He, not they.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[drafdog]

It’s a cultural thing.

Matthew

 

[mattkubes]

Sure. Since God is by all agreements ungendered he is neither male nor female, yet at the time of patriarchal Judaism, it would be pretty much unlikely that a monotheistic God would be described as other than He. It persists to this day. Some people get virtually apoplectic at the mere use of the word She, yet of course they admit that God is pure spirit and not gendered. So I 'm always constrained to understand the fuss.

It’s more than that, although I hardly think I can do the topic justice. The Church is not in error in teaching, to this day, that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. John Paul II summed this us beautifully in his Theology of the Body, but is has to do with out relationship with God; in the sense that we are all recipients of His grace, all humans could be called ‘female’ and hence the Church is called the Bride of Christ. There is some very deep theology rooted in our use of the term Father, and this is something that we should all meditate on. Also, the argument that Jesus was restricted by social norms is, as far as I’m concerned, grasping at straws…since when was Jesus restricted by the laws of man? He is, afterall, our immortal and all-powerful God!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Good response

 

[elts1956]

Where angels fear to tread…

Though our God is not male or female, He chose the male form as Jesus Christ, who referred to our father in heaven.

The feminists are simply loking for “teachers” who will make a case for their anti-family agenda. They will not be able to argue the family and the ordained roles of the mother and father out of existence.

God bless,
Ed

I think God chose humans to spread the truth because s/he knew we would eventually confound ourselves by placing labels on her/him… I agree that because we are human and verbal, written, visual communication is the only way we can inform, teach another, God chose a man, Christ, to do the initial spiritual work on earth because at that time society was absolutely patriarchal. And this type of society was accepted by most members of the world then. BUT did God actually say that ONLY men were to be the leaders in Faith? Or did MEN continue to ordain the roles of both men and women after Christ’s death?. After all, we well know in History that the stronger person, group etc. are the ones that win. And winners get to write the history of what happened. Now, I am not denying any truths here regarding those who wrote the gospels, epistles documents etc. , but have you ever considered that half of humanity, regarding leadership in the church, was left out after Christ died? It is very hard for me to picture every woman in Jerusalem, the Gallilee etc. staying behind closed doors and not going to hear Jesus talk and not taking some form of leadership role. True, those women had to observe Judaic law (read, “What the guys said”, here.) unless they were lucky to be wealthy enough not to have to depend on the male half of the world to see to their care.

Call me feminist if you wish. I certainly am not against the family organization, but that is another topic. But I will say this, I don’t know if God ordained the structure of the family, or if the male side of humanity did, but I firmly believe when Christ was here on Earth, He treated both male and female equally as having equal skills, perhaps different, but equal, as both male and female having souls worth saving, that we were all sons and DAUGHTERS of God. I truly believe that God, just as all we humans do, have both male and female qualities. It is just that males have more of a certain quality/qualities and females more of others. God truly understands both male and female. He accepts both male and female. He loves both male and female equally. So as both the male and female, especially the female having to fill a role designated from biblical days and before, I think that for some women, “What a waste of talent and knowledge”.

 

[elts1956]

Where angels fear to tread…

Though our God is not male or female, He chose the male form as Jesus Christ, who referred to our father in heaven.

The feminists are simply loking for “teachers” who will make a case for their anti-family agenda. They will not be able to argue the family and the ordained roles of the mother and father out of existence.

God bless,
Ed

I think God chose humans to spread the truth because s/he knew we would eventually confound ourselves by placing labels on her/him… I agree that because we are human and verbal, written, visual communication is the only way we can inform, teach another, God chose a man, Christ, to do the initial spiritual work on earth because at that time society was absolutely patriarchal. And this type of society was accepted by most members of the world then. BUT did God actually say that ONLY men were to be the leaders in Faith? Or did MEN continue to ordain the roles of both men and women after Christ’s death?. After all, we well know in History that the stronger person, group etc. are the ones that win. And winners get to write the history of what happened. Now, I am not denying any truths here regarding those who wrote the gospels, epistles documents etc. , but have you ever considered that half of humanity, regarding leadership in the church, was left out after Christ died? It is very hard for me to picture every woman in Jerusalem, the Gallilee etc. staying behind closed doors and not going to hear Jesus talk and not taking some form of leadership role. True, those women had to observe Judaic law (read, “What the guys said”, here.) unless they were lucky to be wealthy enough not to have to depend on the male half of the world to see to their care.

Call me feminist if you wish. I certainly am not against the family organization, but that is another topic. But I will say this, I don’t know if God ordained the structure of the family, or if the male side of humanity did, but I firmly believe when Christ was here on Earth, He treated both male and female equally as having equal skills, perhaps different, but equal, as both male and female having souls worth saving, that we were all sons and DAUGHTERS of God. I truly believe that God, just as all we humans do, have both male and female qualities. It is just that males have more of a certain quality/qualities and females more of others. God truly understands both male and female. He accepts both male and female. He loves both male and female equally. So as both the male and female, especially the female having to fill a role designated from biblical days and before, I think that for some women, “What a waste of talent and knowledge”.

I have also heard there was discussion in Our Church, yes, Our Church asking, “Do females really have souls”? Not what sort of objective view was that. I, for one, am so happy they gave me a soul.

 

[elts1956]

Where angels fear to tread…

Though our God is not male or female, He chose the male form as Jesus Christ, who referred to our father in heaven.

The feminists are simply loking for “teachers” who will make a case for their anti-family agenda. They will not be able to argue the family and the ordained roles of the mother and father out of existence.

God bless,
Ed

I think God chose humans to spread the truth because s/he knew we would eventually confound ourselves by placing labels on her/him… I agree that because we are human and verbal, written, visual communication is the only way we can inform, teach another, God chose a man, Christ, to do the initial spiritual work on earth because at that time society was absolutely patriarchal. And this type of society was accepted by most members of the world then. BUT did God actually say that ONLY men were to be the leaders in Faith? Or did MEN continue to ordain the roles of both men and women after Christ’s death?. After all, we well know in History that the stronger person, group etc. are the ones that win. And winners get to write the history of what happened. Now, I am not denying any truths here regarding those who wrote the gospels, epistles documents etc. , but have you ever considered that half of humanity, regarding leadership in the church, was left out after Christ died? It is very hard for me to picture every woman in Jerusalem, the Gallilee etc. staying behind closed doors and not going to hear Jesus talk and not taking some form of leadership role. True, those women had to observe Judaic law (read, “What the guys said”, here.) unless they were lucky to be wealthy enough not to have to depend on the male half of the world to see to their care.

Call me feminist if you wish. I certainly am not against the family organization, but that is another topic. But I will say this, I don’t know if God ordained the structure of the family, or if the male side of humanity did, but I firmly believe when Christ was here on Earth, He treated both male and female equally as having equal skills, perhaps different, but equal, as both male and female having souls worth saving, that we were all sons and DAUGHTERS of God. I truly believe that God, just as all we humans do, have both male and female qualities. It is just that males have more of a certain quality/qualities and females more of others. God truly understands both male and female. He accepts both male and female. He loves both male and female equally. So as both the male and female, especially the female having to fill a role designated from biblical days and before, I think that for some women, “What a waste of talent and knowledge”.

I have also heard there was discussion in Our Church, yes, Our Church asking, “Do females have souls”? Not what sort of objective view was that? I, for one, am so happy they decided to give me a soul.

 

[Caesar517]

…The fact that Christ assumed the male form is nothing but pure coincidence…

I don’t think anything God does is a coincidence. If he wanted Christ to assume the female form, he could have planned it to occur in a different time in society, where women were not seen as submissive to that extent.

It is because Christ took the male form that there can be no female Catholic priests. He did it on purpose, as He does everything.

Of course, the human “male” and “female” do not really apply to God, as He is not human. We speak of God imperfectly, but speak we do.

 

[Maxply]

I am always amazed (and a little disappointed) when people bring this up. Usually feministy women.

I guess my response is that although I use the word “He”, I aim to be thinking about something bigger and broader than just the male gender. Mentally, I can handle the use of the masculine pronoun, here, and in general use throughout the language.

I think in the '60s, the whole verbal battling over pronouns went a little overboard. For my part, I can readily envision an abstract and gender-less “he”.

Actually, you probably could make a good case for the use of “he” instead of “she”, since “she” seems more definite in gender.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have also heard there was discussion in Our Church, yes, Our Church asking, “Do females have souls”? Not what sort of objective view was that? I, for one, am so happy they decided to give me a soul.

Your source please for this treasure of misinformation. Did you ever hear of the Immaculate Conception?
Prayers s& blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Ignatius]

The Christian God is partly defined as three divine persons who make up the triune Godhead correct.

Then should not we refer to God as “They” .

No, you are in error; they would be used for multiple gods.

God is One! We worship one God. God is one entity, using the plural is grammatically incorrect!

chrismuglia.com/

 

[holy_wood]

No, you are in error; they would be used for multiple gods.

God is One! We worship one God. God is one entity, using the plural is grammatically incorrect!

chrismuglia.com/

What does it meant to be a person?

 

[Nickkname]

The Christian God is partly defined as three divine persons who make up the triune Godhead correct.

Then should not we refer to God as “They” instead of He and only use “He” in appealing to one particular person in the Godhead?

The only reason that I see that we don’t is that we are afraid of being accused of polytheism.

It’s not a matter of monotheism or polytheism, it’s a matter of theology.

 

[LilyM]

I think God chose humans to spread the truth because s/he knew we would eventually confound ourselves by placing labels on her/him… I agree that because we are human and verbal, written, visual communication is the only way we can inform, teach another, God chose a man, Christ, to do the initial spiritual work on earth because at that time society was absolutely patriarchal. And this type of society was accepted by most members of the world then. BUT did God actually say that ONLY men were to be the leaders in Faith? Or did MEN continue to ordain the roles of both men and women after Christ’s death?. After all, we well know in History that the stronger person, group etc. are the ones that win. And winners get to write the history of what happened. Now, I am not denying any truths here regarding those who wrote the gospels, epistles documents etc. , but have you ever considered that half of humanity, regarding leadership in the church, was left out after Christ died? It is very hard for me to picture every woman in Jerusalem, the Gallilee etc. staying behind closed doors and not going to hear Jesus talk and not taking some form of leadership role. True, those women had to observe Judaic law (read, “What the guys said”, here.) unless they were lucky to be wealthy enough not to have to depend on the male half of the world to see to their care.

God did not merely choose a man to do His work - God in fact chose to become flesh Himself - as a male, when the options were open to come as a female or as a hermaphrodite (person of indeterminate gender). Moreover, when God (in the person of Jesus) taught us about Himself (in the person of the Father) - He also taught us, explicitly, to call Him ‘Father’ and not ‘Mother’ or ‘Ungendered parent’ or simply the gender-neutral ‘God’.

I don’t think it was mere pandering to the culture of the time, but instead deeply significant for all time. He did, as you point out, break the cultural taboos in many ways, yet did NOT choose to break this particular one.

Note that He pointedly did NOT choose women as His apostles or to administer His sacraments, not even great women like Mary His mother or Mary Magdalene. There is no way, if women were to be priests, that those two wouldn’t be among them - yet they were NOT.

No female apostles or priests - not even among those whom He sent to the Gentiles (Greeks and Romans and Egytians and the like) who had absolutely no problem whatsoever with the concept of priestesses. And no idea of the One True God as anything but ‘Father’, even though those same gentiles had no problems at all with the concept of a god who wasn’t male.

 

[mattkubes]

God did not merely choose a man to do His work - God in fact chose to become flesh Himself - as a male, when the options were open to come as a female or as a hermaphrodite (person of indeterminate gender). Moreover, when God (in the person of Jesus) taught us about Himself (in the person of the Father) - He also taught us, explicitly, to call Him ‘Father’ and not ‘Mother’ or ‘Ungendered parent’ or simply the gender-neutral ‘God’.

I don’t think it was mere pandering to the culture of the time, but instead deeply significant for all time. He did, as you point out, break the cultural taboos in many ways, yet did NOT choose to break this particular one.

Note that He pointedly did NOT choose women as His apostles or to administer His sacraments, not even great women like Mary His mother or Mary Magdalene. There is no way, if women were to be priests, that those two wouldn’t be among them - yet they were NOT.

No female apostles or priests - not even among those whom He sent to the Gentiles (Greeks and Romans and Egytians and the like) who had absolutely no problem whatsoever with the concept of priestesses. And no idea of the One True God as anything but ‘Father’, even though those same gentiles had no problems at all with the concept of a god who wasn’t male.

Great response (and congrats on post #17,000!). The part I put in bold is something that I think is often overlooked - thanks for bringing it up.

 

[LilyM]

Great response (and congrats on post #17,000!). The part I put in bold is something that I think is often overlooked - thanks for bringing it up.

OOH err, 17,000! I think I’m officially an addict

 

[Tracy10]

Heh heh. Doesn’t matter to me. God is God whether I refer to him as He, She, or It.

Here’s my really complex and detailed philosophy on it though.

In the old days, people always used the pronoun HE when referring to any person not named. Actually it was better that way because now the English language is so screwed up that people often end up using terrible grammar such as
“Each child should take ‘their’ book home with them.”

Actually the word “each” is singular, so the words “their” and “them” should also be replaced with singular words.
In other words, in the old days, when people spoke better grammar than we do today, they would have said
"each child should take his book home with “him.”

Of course, in order to keep it singular, yet still correct, you could always say,
“each child should take his book home with him or her.”
Can you imagine how crazy that could drive you, reading one sentence after another, mentioning both sexes?

When people modernize things for no reason other than to satisfy an often neurotic women’s lib movement for the mere sake of political correctness, they usually mess things up terribly. Have you ever heard the saying, “If something AIN’T broke, don’t fix it?” Love that one in spite of the grammar.

By changing the terminology to appease the women’s rights movements, we made things so difficult for ourselves. Now we have to think, “how can this sentence best be written?”
A better way would be,
“All children should take their books home with them.”
That way everything is plural including the word ALL, which now has replaced EACH. What a mess huh?

Believe me, I would go back to accepting “HE” as the “everything” pronoun any day!

Oh and one more thing – It seems just a little comical for those who believe in the Trinity, that the Father of Jesus could’ve could’ve been a woman, doesn’t it?

 

[Maxply]

I agree with Tracy’s statement on “gender-inclusive” language.

I’m feeling a bit insulted by the experts, etc., who advocated this stuff. They seem to think that I can’t think of “he” in a generic sense. . . which isn’t true at all. . . I CAN mentally divorce specific gender content from that word. The experts think I’m a child, unable to do so.

I’m not certain whether there really ARE any benefits to men (I’m male) from the use of the male pronoun in this abstract sense.

If there are, let me know. I’ll then try to claim them!

At the end of the day, I can’t help but wish for good grammar. One of my major pet peeves is the misuse of the words “I” and “me”.