God Is A He, And Can Never Be Called A "she"

[AccountDeleted]

I don't think it is up to us humans to make this distinction.

Jesus was a man, and there is no doubt about that.

He told us to call God, Our Father, and there is no dobut about that.

The only other person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit but since the Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived, I would take this as the male role to her female one in the act of creation, and say a big Amen to the Holy Spirit being male too.

Not that God is limited to anything. He can be or do anything He wants, but He appears to want to be thought of as male by us humans. If that's what He wants... who am I to argue?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='nunsense' date='06 March 2010 - 09:19 AM' timestamp='1267885141' post='2067493']
I don't think it is up to us humans to make this distinction.

Jesus was a man, and there is no doubt about that.

He told us to call God, Our Father, and there is no dobut about that.

The only other person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit but since the Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived, I would take this as the male role to her female one in the act of creation, and say a big Amen to the Holy Spirit being male too.

Not that God is limited to anything. He can be or do anything He wants, but He appears to want to be thought of as male by us humans. If that's what He wants... who am I to argue?
[/quote]

This is obviously a very correct attitude. I am (highly influenced by Dr. Monica Miller's "Sexuality and Authority in the Catholic Church") merely providing a philosophical / theological reflection on why this is so.

Woman is passive, submissive, and receptive in the generation of life. She could be raped and impregnated against her will. Man is active, invasive, and giving in the generation of life. God's grace is pure act, "complete invasion" (omnipresence / omnipotence; infinite penetration), and total giving in His eternally triune nature. The "masculinity" found within totally-feminine-Creation is merely representative and symbolic of God's eternal and absolute masculinity. I may have a male sex organ, but I am part of the Bride of Christ; I am part of Mother Church; I am part of feminine Creation.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='06 March 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1267884484' post='2067490']
Man is able to, if he (wrongfully) chooses, totally remove himself from the situation after he has given the woman his seed. The process of life within Creation depends on there being a Creation to generate life in the first place, but the life cannot be generated without the gift of grace. In other words, the process of life occurs within Creation, but only passively. Creation is submissive, passive, and receptive to God's act of grace. Woman is submissive, passive, and receptive to man's sex act.
[/quote]

But the man has to be in the situation in the first place (i.e. with the woman) in order to give her his seed. Therefore he is dependent on her presence and on her consent to produce life, which grows within her womb.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

God has revealed Himself as a Father and so it is inappropriate to cast aside the image with which He wants us to think of Him.

However, if you mean "although God is intangible spirit and lacks a physical body, it is hugely important to insist on His masculinity" to the exclusion of the femininity, then that is misguided. God is, in fact, neither masculine nor feminine, rather, masculinity and femininity are both images of the divine. If either of these traits cannot be seen in a perfect way in God, then it does not come from God. All creation images God, the Author who designed according to His own nature in the image of His own nature.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='06 March 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1267887164' post='2067501']
But the man has to be in the situation in the first place (i.e. with the woman) in order to give her his seed. Therefore he is dependent on her presence and on her consent to produce life, which grows within her womb.
[/quote]

Just as God has to be in the situation in the first place (i.e. with the Creation) in order to give His grace to Creation. Man already has the seed to give, just as God already has the grace to give. God also is "dependent" on the presence of Creation in order to perpetuate His grace into Creation, that Creation might be fruitful. However, God is not ultimately dependent on the consent of Creation to do this. Neither is man absolutely dependent on the woman's consent (although such would obviously be a grave violation of the moral law). Moreover, again, there would be no woman (Eve) if there was no man (Adam) from which she could originally be created. Adam came first; that is all there is to it. God came first, and that is all there is to that.

Creation is distinctively feminine, just as the Church is distinctively feminine in relation to God. Masculinity and femininity within feminine-Creation is merely sign of the distinction between God and Creation, just as the husband and the bride is a sign of Christ and the Church. The point is not that God has physical sexuality (besides His incarnate male sexuality), but that male physical sexuality is a sign of God's own nature. The male sexuality is active, invasive, and giving and the female sexuality is passive, submissive, and receiving. That is simply a fact. I suggest that this very fundamental aspect of God's deliberate Creation is not an accident, and is an intentional sign on God's part. Both physical sexes within Creation reveal aspects of God's nature (hence God may be depicted as "motherly" on occasion in Scripture, just as I may be called "motherly" when I am affectionate to my children; that does nothing mitigate the primary and direct nature of God or myself as being masculine). Nevertheless, the male sex is the primary and direct sign of God's "gender", for God's nature may only be indirectly or secondarily called passive, submissive, and receiving; [i]properly speaking, God is pure act, pure domination, pure giving.
[/i]
We simply cannot confuse roles, here. The confusion of God's gender spawns confusion in our own sexual roles. To insist on God masculinity in relation to Creation is to insist on man's femininity in relation to God. This protects the role of the Church in relation to God and explains, for instance, her insistence on an all-male priesthood (the priest's male sexuality being representative of Christ and Christ's male sexuality being representative of God's nature). It is as inappropriate to refer to God/Christ as feminine as it is to refer to the Creation/Church as masculine; kind of like the confusion that would arise by referring to Mary as (properly speaking) a sign of Christ rather than a sign of the Church. Does Mary reveal both? Yes. But of what is she an icon, properly speaking? The Church.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Raphael' date='06 March 2010 - 10:06 AM' timestamp='1267888001' post='2067502']
God has revealed Himself as a Father and so it is inappropriate to cast aside the image with which He wants us to think of Him.
[/quote]

It is utterly incorrect to refer to God as an image of created fatherhood. The exact opposite is true. Human masculinity is the more direct image of God. Both sexes image God, but the male sexuality is the proper image, which is why Adam was created first and woman was created secondarily and only from man.

Again distinction is the key. Active, invasive, and giving vs passive, submissive, and receiving. Both sides are within the triune nature of God; however, one side is secondary to the the other side. Creation should not, properly speaking, be said to be the active, invasive (domineering/penetrating), or giving role in the relationship it shares with God.

[Apotheoun]

As Cardinal Ratzinger once said:

"Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our mind. Christianity is not ‘our’ work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose. Consequently, we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible; it is based on the same Man-God relationship he came to reveal to us."

[Thumper]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='06 March 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1267892088' post='2067517']
It is utterly incorrect to refer to God as an image of created fatherhood. The exact opposite is true. Human masculinity is the more direct image of God. Both sexes image God, but the male sexuality is the proper image, which is why Adam was created first and woman was created secondarily and only from man.[/quote]

It is important to recognize that there are two creation stories in Genesis, Genesis 1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. In fact, only one of those creation stories describes human beings as made in the image of God--and it describes them as both equally made in the image of God:

Genesis 1:26-27: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,and over all the creatures that move along the ground.' So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Neither man nor woman is "more properly" the image of God than the other.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Thumper

[Catholictothecore]

I think the importance of calling God by masculine pronouns simply boils down the repsecting the fact that God choose to reveal himself to us via masculine pronouns.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='06 March 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1267892088' post='2067517']
It is utterly incorrect to refer to God as an image of created fatherhood. The exact opposite is true. Human masculinity is the more direct image of God. Both sexes image God, but the male sexuality is the proper image, which is why Adam was created first and woman was created secondarily and only from man.
[/quote]
You misunderstand me. Our calling God "Father" is by way of analogy. Our concept of "fatherhood" is an image of His authentic "fatherhood," but they are only analogous and in reality as far apart as the heavens and the earth. We use the term "Father" because He wishes us to know Him by that analogy. We cannot categorize Him except by analogy because our minds cannot understand what He truly is. Therefore, He has spoken of Himself as Father so that we may use our understanding of fatherhood as an analogy for Him, but our understanding should be based on what is, in fact, an image of the fullness of "fatherhood" in God.

In other words, our understanding of "fatherhood" is an image of God (as is our understanding of "motherhood" or any other good and true thing), but God so far surpasses our "fatherhood" that we can only really call Him "Father" by analogy. However, He has willed that we use this particular analogy because He knows that it is the analogy which will best help us to understand in our limited, analogous way the reality of who and what He is.

[BarbTherese]

Taking modern thought into account, I think that God is all things, all genders, and yet He transcends them "I Am Who Am". God is Ultimate Mystery and the human mind cannot grasp God. While Jesus has taught us to think of God as "Our Father" and to relate to Him as such - this is a tremendous gift since as history rolled on and modern thought came to be, if Jesus had not taught us to think of God as our Father, where would we be in simple relating to God? This revelation sheds much light for us as Jesus refers to God as "Abba" and we are drawn into this intimate relationship through being instructed to call God "our Father" and hence drawn into a relationship of brothers and sisters of Jesus and children of God, Who is now Father to us also.

Blessings this Lent - Barb

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='07 March 2010 - 04:46 AM' timestamp='1267899366' post='2067554']
As Cardinal Ratzinger once said:

"Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our mind. Christianity is not ‘our’ work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose. Consequently, we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible; it is based on the same Man-God relationship he came to reveal to us."
[/quote]

Thank you for this quote, Apotheoun - and thank you our now Pope Benedict XVI, it says it all. I would like to keep on file the above quotation, can you give a link please, Apotheoun?
Edit: I did some research and it seems to be a book only?

Blessings this Lent - Barb

Edited March 6, 2010 by BarbaraTherese

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Raphael' date='06 March 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1267915856' post='2067652']
You misunderstand me. Our calling God "Father" is by way of analogy. Our concept of "fatherhood" is an image of His authentic "fatherhood," but they are only analogous and in reality as far apart as the heavens and the earth. We use the term "Father" because He wishes us to know Him by that analogy. We cannot categorize Him except by analogy because our minds cannot understand what He truly is. Therefore, He has spoken of Himself as Father so that we may use our understanding of fatherhood as an analogy for Him, but our understanding should be based on what is, in fact, an image of the fullness of "fatherhood" in God.

In other words, our understanding of "fatherhood" is an image of God (as is our understanding of "motherhood" or any other good and true thing), but God so far surpasses our "fatherhood" that we can only really call Him "Father" by analogy. However, He has willed that we use this particular analogy because He knows that it is the analogy which will best help us to understand in our limited, analogous way the reality of who and what He is.
[/quote]

I agree with this entirely.

My posts attempt to rationalize why God has revealed that our fatherhood and masculinity is peculiarly appropriate as an image of Him. Both man and woman is equally an image of God in the spiritual sense, and both sexes physically illustrate certain aspects of God as well; however, when it comes to the physical sex and the marital embrace for which it was made, it is the male sex that most directly and properly images God for reasons already explained.

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='Catholictothecore' date='07 March 2010 - 06:18 AM' timestamp='1267904918' post='2067580']
I think the importance of calling God by masculine pronouns simply boils down the repsecting the fact that God choose to reveal himself to us via masculine pronouns.
[/quote]

Very true! But male gender surely not chosen 'willy nilly'? - rather to tell us something about Himself that we can grasp and relate to - rather than leaving it at "I Am Who Am" which is total mystery to us, which He also is in that He is totally beyond all human understanding. God is at once "I Am Who Am" and Total Mystery and He is also our Father, revealed to us by Jesus.

Blessings this Lent - Barb

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='BarbaraTherese' date='06 March 2010 - 04:05 PM' timestamp='1267916743' post='2067659']
Thank you for this quote, Apotheoun - and thank you our now Pope Benedict XVI, it says it all. I would like to keep on file the above quotation, can you give a link please, Apotheoun?
Edit: I did some research and it seems to be a book only?

Blessings this Lent - Barb
[/quote]
The quotation is from a book pubished by Ignatius Press called "[url="http://www.amazon.com/Ratzinger-Report-Exclusive-Interview-Church/dp/0898700809/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267917740&sr=1-1"]The Ratzinger Report[/url]."