God

[ithinkjesusiscool]

Pax!
How do you deal with this: We often refer to beauty and receiving as a feminine qualities (not that men aren't beautiful and receiving). God refer to Himself as "He" and appears as male. Virgin Mary is beautiful and the receiving empatic woman (even if Jesus empatic). I don't know where I am going with this...
What are your Catholic thoughts on this?

[pippo buono]

I think Joseph Ratzinger provides an interesting commentary on the matter:

 

First of all we have to say that the Bible does indeed, when addressing god in prayer, use the image of him as Father, and not as Mother, but that in images used in talking about God it always equally attributes feminine characteristics to him. When, for instance, it is talking about God's sympathy, the Old Testament does not refer to that with the abstract word "sympathy", but uses a term with a corporal reference, rachamin, the "motherly body" of God, which represents sympathy. This term demonstrates the motherly characteristics of God, albeit in the spiritual dimension (God and the World, 101).

 

At the bottom of this is a Jewish heritage that was very concrete in its hermeneutic. The transmission of concepts, ideas and truths took place largely through concrete expressions: stories, images, analogies, etc.

 

Personally speaking, after serving in the Andes up until now, I think this ultimately a human heritage. The material is capable of expressing the spiritual, although this expression is limited. This is especially true for the human being.

Edited September 26, 2014 by pippo buono

[Basilisa Marie]

The Old Testament contains both feminine and masculine imagery for God, and both are used with specific purposes. The "wisdom of God" is almost always female, for example. But we also have to remember that most languages have masculine and feminine nouns, while English doesn't, so there's a lot of wordplay that doesn't necessarily refer to human bodily gender. Though I suppose it still can tell us something about masculinity and femininity, I think it's also limited.

 

Christ called God "Father," and Christians do so in imitation of him. God is often referred to as a bridegroom, and the community of people (Israel, the Church, etc) as a bride. This imagery made sense to the people and it tells us important things about the relationship between God and humanity. God initiates the relationship, and humanity responds. (I tend to prefer "respond" - I think it works better in our context) Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but that was usually how marriage worked then, too - the prospective husband would "ask" for his future bride, he'd initiate the relationship and be entrusted with her care. Humanity is also likened to an unfaithful bride, God is constantly having to go seek her out and bring her back to faithfulness. God's always faithful to his people, but humanity, not so much.  

 

Beauty isn't always a feminine quality in scripture, though we do see it more associated with women. Christ is incredibly empathetic, and plenty of men in scripture display lots of empathy and feelings and such. Ancient Jewish ideas of gender norms and gender norms at the time of Christ and gender norms today are all kinda different (us moreso than others, we're really colored by ideas with Protestant roots).  So when we're talking about gender we have to give it context and try to parse out what's in the culture, what's in the time period, and what's in the text and tradition that we can learn from. It can get complicated. 

 

Augustine talks about gender in his "On the Trinity," answering the question about how Paul tells women to cover their heads in church.  He talks about how men and women all image God in their humanity, but masculinity and femininity themselves image different things. Masculinity images more things of the spiritual world, as we see in Christ, and femininity images more things of the natural world. And you can see why he comes to this conclusion - female bodies are more geared towards creating and sustaining new life than those of men, and while men participate it's not nearly to the same level. Augustine connects femininity to the goodness of this world, and masculinity to the goodness of spiritual things. He then argues that women cover their heads (and men leave theirs uncovered) as a sign to everyone that we need to keep our attention on spiritual things first and foremost. It's not about men being holier than women or anything like that, because both are equal in their humanity and dignity.  But femininity and masculinity symbolize different things. 

Anyway. There's a lot to be said and a lot of theological work that needs to be done when it comes to understanding the meaning of masculinity and femininity. :) 

[Spem in alium]

I've done a little research in this area. It has been argued that God and even Christ can both be viewed as maternal figures in accordance with Biblical references and developments in spirituality (medieval Cistercian writers seem to have focused quite prominently on the maternal God). I find it quite an interesting subject.

[ithinkjesusiscool]

I've done a little research in this area. It has been argued that God and even Christ can both be viewed as maternal figures in accordance with Biblical references and developments in spirituality (medieval Cistercian writers seem to have focused quite prominently on the maternal God). I find it quite an interesting subject.

Please explain! I don't really understand.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

You say a flower is beautiful which often is neither masculine nore feminine. Women think particular men as beautiful as do men toward women and each has different taste, like some are drawn more closely to benedictine spirituality and some thomantine or carmelite, etc etc. Beauty is a word that defines to an individual or group the outstanding, an exception a rare quality whether physical, spiritual,intellectual or an emotional feeling.

 

These are my thoughts on your question. :)

 

Onward christian souls.

 

God iz Good.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[ithinkjesusiscool]

Great Theoligians eg Thomas Aquinas was influenced by Greek philosophy. ICan we realky use Greek philosophy in order to understaand Old Testament philosophy and Theooogy?

[Basilisa Marie]

Great Theoligians eg Thomas Aquinas was influenced by Greek philosophy. ICan we realky use Greek philosophy in order to understaand Old Testament philosophy and Theooogy?

 

Well that's one reason why Thomas faced a TON of criticism of his work during his life - people were skeptical of how Aristotle (and the commentaries of Ibn Sina [Avicenna] and others) could possibly help us understand and explain Christianity.  

 

As far as the Old Testament goes, I believe you have to include how the ancient Jews interpreted scripture in whatever major study you're doing - otherwise you're ignoring the primary audience of the text and so you'll be hampered.  

Aristotle is far from perfect, but can be helpful in understanding principles like truth and virtue. He gives us one way to understand it, and The Church has put her 'rubber stamp' of approval on a lot of it.  But he also though women were pretty much subhuman, so... yeah.  

 

Spem would answer the question about maternal figures better than me, but I think it has a lot to do with mysticism and stuff.  Yes? 

[Spem in alium]

Please explain! I don't really understand.

 

Arguments for the maternal God tend to focus on Scripture passages which are claimed to allude to God as a maternal figure, such as Deuteronomy 32:10-11 and Psalm 17:8. Similar references are also made to Christ, with Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 used as particular examples. These verses speak of God as a nurturing, tender figure, attributes often aligned with maternal imagery and stereotypes.

As for medieval writers, Bernard of Clairvaux is a good example. He wrote of Jesus, abbots and himself as "mother", and was particularly focused on a mother's role as the physical nurturer of the child, whom she holds at her breast. He actually spoke of Jesus in this way, particularly in his analysis of the Song of Songs. For example, in his comment on the verse, "For your breasts are better than wine, smelling sweet of the best ointments" (1:1-2), he draws parallels with Christ the bridegroom: "She [the bride, or the soul] would seem to say to the bridegroom [Christ]: 'What wonder if I presume to ask you for this favour, since your breasts have given me such overwhelming joy?'...When she said then, 'Your breasts are better than wine', she meant: 'The richness of the grace that flows from your breasts contributes far more to my spiritual progress than the biting reprimands of superiors.'" Christ is thus not only cast as feminine here, but also maternal.

 

I hope this helps a little! You may be interested in looking at this book, which has a lot to say about this subject. It is focused particularly on medieval spirituality, which is my own area of interest, but you may find it relevant. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=SRN0q7zfyiYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Spem would answer the question about maternal figures better than me, but I think it has a lot to do with mysticism and stuff.  Yes? 

 

I don't know a great deal about this issue, but I'd tend to agree. Mystical and visionary experiences also seem to have a strong part to play in the development of this imagery, particularly during the Middle Ages.

[ithinkjesusiscool]

I read that both Eclessiasticus and the Prologue of the Gospel of John were inspired by Greek philosophy. Some would even go so far as saying that the Prologue of the Gospel of John is somewhat based on platonism (Aristole was never mentioned).
I find it interesting...

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

There are three senses in ancient hebrew, the masculine, the feminine and neutral.