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

[Apotheoun]

God is literally Father, and He is so first and foremost because He truly and eternally generated His only Son.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='06 March 2010 - 06:26 PM' timestamp='1267917961' post='2067672']
God is literally Father, and He is so first and foremost because He truly and eternally generated His only Son.
[/quote]
Yes, but He is Father in a way we can relate to only by analogy, which was my point. Everything that makes an earthly father a father is true of God, except in a way infinitely higher (God, for instance, does not generate through sexuality). Our fatherhood is an imperfect image of His authentic Fatherhood and He has humbly permitted us who can only conceptualize earthly fathers to call Him by the same title as an analogy, but His Fatherhood is as far above ours as the heavens are above the earth.

I would argue, however, that since "Father" is a human term made by men to refer to human fatherhood, we cannot call God "Father" directly but by analogy, since the denotation of the term carries along with it the human conception of fatherhood and not the divine reality. However, that in God to which our conception of Fatherhood corresponds by analogy is true and authentic fatherhood to the greatest and most perfect degree.

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='07 March 2010 - 09:53 AM' timestamp='1267917791' post='2067670']
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]."
[/quote]

Thank you!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Raphael' date='06 March 2010 - 04:37 PM' timestamp='1267918677' post='2067675']
Yes, but He is Father in a way we can relate to only by analogy, which was my point. Everything that makes an earthly father a father is true of God, except in a way infinitely higher (God, for instance, does not generate through sexuality). Our fatherhood is an imperfect image of His authentic Fatherhood and He has humbly permitted us who can only conceptualize earthly fathers to call Him by the same title as an analogy, but His Fatherhood is as far above ours as the heavens are above the earth.

I would argue, however, that since "Father" is a human term made by men to refer to human fatherhood, we cannot call God "Father" directly but by analogy, since the denotation of the term carries along with it the human conception of fatherhood and not the divine reality. However, that in God to which our conception of Fatherhood corresponds by analogy is true and authentic fatherhood to the greatest and most perfect degree.
[/quote]
I am not big on all the analogy talk. I relate to God the Father as my true Father because I have been assimilated to the Son as a member of His body. God the Father is not the mother of the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit the Son's mother; instead, His mother is the Theotokos, and in my opinion to move beyond the categories of revelation involves dangerous speculation, including the danger of reducing the revealed terminology used for the Trinity by our Lord to mere analogies and metaphors.

Christ revealed the dogma of the Trinity, and the language He used is normative.

Edited March 6, 2010 by Apotheoun

[BarbTherese]

[quote name='Raphael' date='07 March 2010 - 10:07 AM' timestamp='1267918677' post='2067675']
However, that in God to which our conception of Fatherhood corresponds by analogy is true and authentic fatherhood to the greatest and most perfect degree.
[/quote]

Well said. Jesus turns our concepts of fatherhood upside down as it were in His parables - for one - and reveals a Father such as we have never known in earthly fatherhood. What these parables, for one, do is to completely transcend our concepts re earthly fatherhood and replace them with a completely new concept that, undoubtedly, as the relationship grows also embraces the mystery of "I Am Who Am" and Father as Ultimate Mystery beyond human concepts.
CCC http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p4s2a2.htm "2779 Before we make our own this first exclamation of the Lord's Prayer, we must humbly cleanse our hearts of certain false images drawn "from this world." Humility makes us recognize that "no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him," that is, "to little children."30 The purification of our hearts has to do with paternal or maternal images, stemming from our personal and cultural history, and influencing our relationship with God. God our Father transcends the categories of the created world. To impose our own ideas in this area "upon him" would be to fabricate idols to adore or pull down. To pray to the Father is to enter into his mystery as he is and as the Son has revealed him to us.

The expression God the Father had never been revealed to anyone. When Moses himself asked God who he was, he heard another name. The Father's name has been revealed to us in the Son, for the name "Son" implies the new name "Father."31 "

Edited March 7, 2010 by BarbaraTherese

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='06 March 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1267919101' post='2067679']
I am not big on all the analogy talk. I relate to God the Father as my true Father because I have been assimilated to the Son as a member of His body. God the Father is not the mother of the Son, nor is the Holy Spirit the Son's mother; instead, His mother is the Theotokos, and in my opinion to move beyond the categories of revelation involves dangerous speculation, including the danger of reducing the revealed terminology used for the Trinity by our Lord to mere analogies and metaphors.

Christ revealed the dogma of the Trinity, and the language He used is normative.
[/quote]
I don't think it's dangerous speculation to say that motherhood, which is a good thing, must have its source in the Source of all good things.

Maybe that's just me.

It doesn't make it appropriate to call God Christ's mother or to speak of God as feminine. As for the analogy thing, I know Easterners see that as a lot of scholasticism, but I figured you'd side with me on not predicating human concepts to God.

[Jesus_lol]

ive been following this topic and a few others like it, and i still cant say it matters one way or the other.

im kind of expecting a topic soon on what colour of clothes God wears, according to scripture.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='07 March 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1267945620' post='2067916']
ive been following this topic and a few others like it, and i still cant say it matters one way or the other.

im kind of expecting a topic soon on what colour of clothes God wears, according to scripture.
[/quote]

The thing is, God has chosen to reveal himself in masculine terms and He has chosen to reveal His People in feminine terms. He also created the male sexuality first and produced the female sexuality from the preexisting man. We must be careful not the reduce these deliberate actions to mere happenstance, as if God could have just as properly referred to Himself in feminine terms and His People in masculine terms. Now anything that is deliberate is the product of reason and will. In other words, there must be a reason that God uses the male sexuality as a humanly understandable description of His nature; I suggest that the answer is found in that masculinity is active whereas femininity is passive.

We do not say that God is male, but that masculinity is a sign of God's nature in a greater and more direct way than femininity.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='07 March 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1267945620' post='2067916']
ive been following this topic and a few others like it, and i still cant say it matters one way or the other.

im kind of expecting a topic soon on what colour of clothes God wears, according to scripture.
[/quote]
I would never dignify such a thread with a response. I mean, come on, [i]colour[/i]? What is that, really? Silly Canadians.

It does matter because we should respect the way God has chosen to reveal Himself. There is something about fatherhood that reflects something in God particularly relevant to us.

[Socrates]

I'm with Ziggy 100% here.

[HisChildForever]

If God created man and woman in His image, does that not imply that He possesses both "characteristics" of masculinity and femininity equally?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='06 March 2010 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1267891677' post='2067515']
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.
[/quote]

I understand what you are saying; I am just trying to make a very simple point. As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango." A husband is dependent on his wife for the creation of new life. Simple biology.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='07 March 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1267998355' post='2068250']
If God created man and woman in His image, does that not imply that He possesses both "characteristics" of masculinity and femininity equally?
[/quote]

Not necessarily. It might imply that he created man in his image (fullness of masculinity), but that women also to a lesser extent exhibit his masculinity in their form as well.

I am not saying I ascribe to this view, just positing it.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='07 March 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1267998447' post='2068251']
I understand what you are saying; I am just trying to make a very simple point. As the saying goes, "it takes two to tango." A husband is dependent on his wife for the creation of new life. Simple biology.
[/quote]

I think you and zigga should just both say "husband and wife are co-partners and co-dependent in human procreation."

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='07 March 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1267998457' post='2068252']
Not necessarily. It might imply that he created man in his image (fullness of masculinity), but that women also to a lesser extent exhibit his masculinity in their form as well.

I am not saying I ascribe to this view, just positing it.
[/quote]

Then why would the verse read [b]And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.[/b] Is the first "man" actually referring to the male sex, or to mankind?