L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Heavenly, you’re misunderstanding what I am saying, I think. Immanence and transcendence are not manmade ideas or distinctions. They are basic metaphysical realities. God transcends the universe, because He is not inside it. That’s a fact, and its got nothing to do with gender. Human beings are immanent to the universe - they are inside of the universe. That too is a fact which has nothing to do with gender.
The problem is that we think today of masculinity and femininity as things that are defined by what men and women are - masculinity is defined as being that which is like men, and femininity is defined as being that which is like women. With this thinking, then when a person says that masculinity is transcendant and femininity is not, the idea comes across that what is being said is that women cannot transcend or that whoever created these distinctions views women in some diminishing way.
The reality, as I tried to point out in my first paragraph, is that immanence and emmanence are simply metaphysical realities that existed long before any human being - or any other sexual animal - ever existed. Given these already existing realities, when different genders began to exist, the male gender simply matches the emmanent reality in terms of sexuality, most specifically in terms of the generation of offspring. The female gender matches the immanent reality in terms of the generation of offspring.
God’s relation to us is just like our relation to our children - He creates us as children - and so it is rather fitting to use these same terms -masculinity versus femininity - in relation to Him, epecially since He is personal. We could call Him “It,” but that would detract from His existence as a personal God.
The problem is that we think today of masculinity and femininity as things that are defined by what men and women are - masculinity is defined as being that which is like men, and femininity is defined as being that which is like women. With this thinking, then when a person says that masculinity is transcendant and femininity is not, the idea comes across that what is being said is that women cannot transcend or that whoever created these distinctions views women in some diminishing way.
The reality, as I tried to point out in my first paragraph, is that immanence and emmanence are simply metaphysical realities that existed long before any human being - or any other sexual animal - ever existed. Given these already existing realities, when different genders began to exist, the male gender simply matches the emmanent reality in terms of sexuality, most specifically in terms of the generation of offspring. The female gender matches the immanent reality in terms of the generation of offspring.
God’s relation to us is just like our relation to our children - He creates us as children - and so it is rather fitting to use these same terms -masculinity versus femininity - in relation to Him, epecially since He is personal. We could call Him “It,” but that would detract from His existence as a personal God.