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

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='07 March 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1267998594' post='2068254']
I think you and zigga should just both say "husband and wife are co-partners and co-dependent in human procreation."
[/quote]

Yes, this is EXACTLY what I am saying!!! His original post sounded as if women are dependent on men, but not the other way around, for the creation of new life. Which is simply impossible, the only exception being Mary.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='07 March 2010 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1267998639' post='2068255']
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?
[/quote]

If we're trying to reconcile the two stories of creation, I would assume the first "man" likely refers to Adam and the "male" and "female" refers to Adam and then Eve (who was created from Adam). Again, I'm just throwing ideas out here...I'm not really gonna claim to have vested interest in the interpretation of these passages one way or another.

That said I tend to defer my opinion to theologians who wrote before the sexual and feminist revolution, which means it tends to have a more traditional and patriarchal (you can argue whether this is appropriate or not) view of it all.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='07 March 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1267999047' post='2068260']
That said I tend to defer my opinion to theologians who wrote before the sexual and feminist revolution, which means it tends to have a more traditional and patriarchal (you can argue whether this is appropriate or not) view of it all.
[/quote]

I would argue over its appropriateness because women were treated like second class citizens.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='07 March 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1268000407' post='2068273']
I would argue over its appropriateness because women were treated like second class citizens.
[/quote]

And I would argue that the admitted political and social foibles of the patriarchal past do not justify a complete jettisoning of all patriarchal theological or liturgical considerations.

[Hroswitha1943]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='05 March 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1267847776' post='2067357']
Man is also entirely dependent on the woman when it comes to producing life.
[/quote]
Both man and woman contribute genetic material to the child. The man does not have and more input than the woman. Get a biology book and read upon reproduction.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Hroswitha1943' date='07 March 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1268002510' post='2068312']
Both man and woman contribute genetic material to the child. The man does not have and more input than the woman. Get a biology book and read upon reproduction.
[/quote]

To be fair...while male and female both contribute 23 human nuclear chromosomes, women in fact contribute ALL of the mitochondrial DNA to their offspring. So in this sense they do contribute more genetic material to the child.

I figured you would enjoy that fact hcf.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hroswitha1943' date='07 March 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1268002510' post='2068312']
Both man and woman contribute genetic material to the child. The man does not have and more input than the woman. Get a biology book and read upon reproduction.
[/quote]
Wow, good first real post.

[Apotheoun]

So, then, brethren, if we do the will of our Father God, we shall be members of the first church, the spiritual,--that which was created before sun and moon; but if we shall not do the will of the Lord, we shall come under the Scripture which saith, "My house became a den of robbers." So, then, let us elect to belong to the church of life, that we may be saved. I think not that ye are ignorant that the living church is the body of Christ (for the Scripture, saith, "God created man male and female;" the male is Christ, the female the church,) and that the Books and the Apostles teach that the church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest at the end of the days in order to save us. The church being spiritual, was made manifest in the flesh of Christ, signifying to us that if any one of us shall preserve it in the flesh and corrupt it not, he shall receive it in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh is the type of the spirit; no one, therefore, having corrupted the type, will receive afterwards the antitype. Therefore is it, then, that He saith, brethren, "Preserve ye the flesh, that ye may become partakers of the spirit." If we say that the flesh is the church and the spirit Christ, then it follows that he who shall offer outrage to the flesh is guilty of outrage on the church. Such an one, therefore, will not partake of the spirit, which is Christ. Such is the life and immortality, which this flesh may afterwards receive, the Holy Spirit cleaving to it; and no one can either express or utter what things the Lord hath prepared for His elect.

[i]- Second Letter of St. Clement, no. 14[/i]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Hroswitha1943' date='07 March 2010 - 05:55 PM' timestamp='1268002510' post='2068312']
Both man and woman contribute genetic material to the child. The man does not have and more input than the woman. Get a biology book and read upon reproduction.
[/quote]

Good job reading my post out of context, and great job ignoring all of my posts in this thread.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='07 March 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1268003646' post='2068330']
So, then, brethren, if we do the will of our Father God, we shall be members of the first church, the spiritual,--that which was created before sun and moon; but if we shall not do the will of the Lord, we shall come under the Scripture which saith, "My house became a den of robbers." So, then, let us elect to belong to the church of life, that we may be saved. I think not that ye are ignorant that the living church is the body of Christ (for the Scripture, saith, "God created man male and female;" the male is Christ, the female the church,) and that the Books and the Apostles teach that the church is not of the present, but from the beginning. For it was spiritual, as was also our Jesus, and was made manifest at the end of the days in order to save us. The church being spiritual, was made manifest in the flesh of Christ, signifying to us that if any one of us shall preserve it in the flesh and corrupt it not, he shall receive it in the Holy Spirit. For this flesh is the type of the spirit; no one, therefore, having corrupted the type, will receive afterwards the antitype. Therefore is it, then, that He saith, brethren, "Preserve ye the flesh, that ye may become partakers of the spirit." If we say that the flesh is the church and the spirit Christ, then it follows that he who shall offer outrage to the flesh is guilty of outrage on the church. Such an one, therefore, will not partake of the spirit, which is Christ. Such is the life and immortality, which this flesh may afterwards receive, the Holy Spirit cleaving to it; and no one can either express or utter what things the Lord hath prepared for His elect.

[i]- Second Letter of St. Clement, no. 14[/i]
[/quote]

I love it when you quote Popes.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='07 March 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1268002040' post='2068301']
And I would argue that the admitted political and social foibles of the patriarchal past do not justify a complete jettisoning of all patriarchal theological or liturgical considerations.
[/quote]

Of course not. But one must understand that such political and social "foibles" (weird word) are the reason why many people DO jettison the considerations you mention. When the roles of men and women are explained in a theological context, for example, this is often met with much resistance because people assume the worst based on the patriarchal past and the writings of many men. For example, I cannot count the number of times I have been told that "submissive" is not a bad word in regards to Catholic theology, yet it is incredibly difficult for many women (and men) to understand and accept due to the connotations that go with the word "submissive" thanks to said patriarchal past.

[quote name='Veridicus' date='07 March 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1268002680' post='2068318']
To be fair...while male and female both contribute 23 human nuclear chromosomes, women in fact contribute ALL of the mitochondrial DNA to their offspring. So in this sense they do contribute more genetic material to the child.

I figured you would enjoy that fact hcf.
[/quote]

Holla.

Edited March 7, 2010 by HisChildForever

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='07 March 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1268003881' post='2068336']
I love it when you quote Popes.
[/quote]
I should - for the sake of historical accuracy - point out that the [i]Second Letter of St. Clement[/i] is one of the pseudo-Clementine writings, but it is still a very important second century text.

Only the so-called [i]First Letter of St. Clement[/i] is genuine.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='07 March 2010 - 05:20 PM' timestamp='1268004036' post='2068339']
Of course not. But one must understand that such political and social "foibles" (weird word) are the reason why many people DO jettison the considerations you mention. When the roles of men and women are explained in a theological context, for example, this is often met with much resistance because people assume the worst based on the patriarchal past and the writings of many men. For example, I cannot count the number of times I have been told that "submissive" is not a bad word in regards to Catholic theology, yet it is incredibly difficult for many women (and men) to understand and accept due to the connotations that go with the word "submissive" thanks to said patriarchal past.
[/quote]

I am of the opinion that a great deal of discontent and doctrinal confusion occurred within the Church because of the tendency of some during the sexual/feminist revolution to dismiss utterly those things in tradition which in any way had a patriarchal tone. To be sure there are plenty of examples in the Christian West where women were on the receiving end of misogyny.

Like with the many developments in the Church after V2, I think we have a lot of work to do to find the appropriate balance.

It is almost impossible for most women to comprehend how submission could be anything other than misogyny or an attempt to 'keep the woman down'. This does a great disservice to the Pauline language which describes the Church as bride to Christ her husband. It is not surprising there is such anticlerical/antiestablishment discontent in some folds of Catholics given the excessive license in (re)defining gender in a post-patriarchal West.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='07 March 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1268004503' post='2068344']
It is almost impossible for most women to comprehend how submission could be anything other than misogyny or an attempt to 'keep the woman down'. This does a great disservice to the Pauline language which describes the Church as bride to Christ her husband. It is not surprising there is such anticlerical/antiestablishment discontent in some folds of Catholics [b]given the excessive license in (re)defining gender in a post-patriarchal West.[/b]
[/quote]

Or the personal experiences many women have when it comes to sexism and abuse by men who exercise power over them simply because of their sex. A general misunderstanding of Catholic teaching also contributes.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='07 March 2010 - 04:52 PM' timestamp='1267998750' post='2068258']
Yes, this is EXACTLY what I am saying!!! His original post sounded as if women are dependent on men, but not the other way around, for the creation of new life. Which is simply impossible, the only exception being Mary.
[/quote]


I thought that I addressed this by saying that there would be no women if there had not first been the original man, Adam. Although it takes a man and a woman now, in the original Creation, man came first. I see this as illustrating the feminine (Creation) springing from the masculine (Creator). And again, the key is not "who contributes more" but on a comparison of the sexual roles; active vs. passive. To turn it into a competitive thing between men and women (both of feminine Creation) is to miss my point entirely. Moreover, even now the man possesses the seed and the woman possesses the soil; it takes both to produce the plant (and the plant is the product of both), but the the woman is the passive party in the endeavor to create the child. Again, a man can rape a woman and she can become pregnant against her will. He is the active party; the giver.

It is interesting examining certain inconsistencies in Mosaic law between men and women (as well as similar, albeit less startling, inconsistencies in the New Testament) in light of all of this. Again, I think it comes back to the fundamental reason that Christ had to be a man; it was not merely a cultural necessity of the times.