Socrates Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 Neither the Holy Father (nor I presume St. hildegard, though to tell the truth, I 'm not reallyu familiat with him) has generally referred to God in feminine terms, instead of masculine. I think GF is getting into very theologically "iffy" territory, when he says that God has characteristics of both sexes. Our Lord told us to call God Father. He told is Mary is our Mother, "Son, behold your mother." The Church has followed this example ever sense. The Holy Spirit can only be considered feminine inasfar as my breathe or life (soul) can be considered feminine. God is three Persons in One God. These Persons are not Masculine and Feminine "parts" of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='IcePrincessKRS']Thats what I was thinking.... be forewarned people, I have my finger hovering over the "close this thread" button if I think its getting ugly.[/quote] Has there even been any sign of this thread "getting ugly"? Perhaps the moderators should take their fingers off the triggers, they are getting trigger happy. Socrates -- I clearly demonstrated where two popes did, in fact, refer to God in feminine terms. Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul I said that God is Father, but also Mother. Pope John Paul II clearly said that God has motherly, and thus feminine, characteristics. I'm certainly not going to argue with you over this, because I don't care enough. The fact is that I have quoted two popes; take their liberal New Age dissent up with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 if someone went and read the title of this thread then just the last couple of posts they'd think we were talking about whether God is a transexual. :ph34r: I'm scared... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I'm not in any way saying that God is a transsexual. I'm saying that God transcends gender; God is both male and female and, at the same time, neither male nor female. No one should be reading just the title and a few replies at the end, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 (edited) GF, I was kidding! anyway, IMHO, when something is gender neutral that is perfect reason to refer to them in the masculine. Because the feminine gender is the identifying gender, before the feminine gender there was only one gender. Having a feminine gender makes there have to be one refered to as a masculine gender. Adam before Eve really can't be called masculine either. He in that period of time would be the only example ever of a gender-neutral human being. When Eve was made out of him, he became man and Eve became woman. But we still refer to Adam before that point as masculine. This is also why we refer to the gender-neutral God as masculine. To call Him by femine terms would be to identify a gender in Him, while to call him by masculine terms would be to not identify Him by any gender. And I certainly don't have to school you on the non-impeccability of popes although I also wouldn't say that to compare God to a femine earthly thing is heresy unless it is sparked out of alterior motives. But yeah, the proper terminology is the masculine terminology because that is the terminology which does not necessarily identify a gender. Which is why in practically every language an unknown gender takes HE (except in modern PC english where it takes on a He/She which just annoys me). Edited January 23, 2005 by Aluigi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 God has mot powerfully revealed Himself to us as male. I think the primary reason for this is because males create best outside of themselves and the Universe is not inside of god, it is otside of Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spathariossa Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 22 2005, 09:55 PM'] GF, I was kidding! anyway, IMHO, when something is gender neutral that is perfect reason to refer to them in the masculine. Because the feminine gender is the identifying gender, before the feminine gender there was only one gender. Having a feminine gender makes there have to be one refered to as a masculine gender. Adam before Eve really can't be called masculine either. He in that period of time would be the only example ever of a gender-neutral human being. When Eve was made out of him, he became man and Eve became woman. But we still refer to Adam before that point as masculine. This is also why we refer to the gender-neutral God as masculine. To call Him by femine terms would be to identify a gender in Him, while to call him by masculine terms would be to not identify Him by any gender. And I certainly don't have to school you on the non-impeccability of popes although I also wouldn't say that to compare God to a femine earthly thing is heresy unless it is sparked out of alterior motives. But yeah, the proper terminology is the masculine terminology because that is the terminology which does not necessarily identify a gender. Which is why in practically every language an unknown gender takes HE (except in modern PC english where it takes on a He/She which just annoys me). [/quote] Actually the "incorrect" usage of referring to an unknown gender in the plural - "they, their" is actually most common these days. My friend went to the store. Oh, why'd they do that? The truth of the matter is that this is the ancient way of doing things in the english language. We have always used a plural to refer to an unknown gender. It was grammarians in the 17th century who decided based on latin grammar that this usage was somehow incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I offered two reasons: one is the language reason and the other is the Adam/Eve reason. Female is the identifying gender that makes there be two genders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spathariossa Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 22 2005, 10:10 PM'] I offered two reasons: one is the language reason and the other is the Adam/Eve reason. Female is the identifying gender that makes there be two genders. [/quote] I was only responding to you with a bit of linguistic history. The rest of this conversation concerns me not. I call God He, He is the Father, and frankly, all those people these days talking about "she" and "goddess" just irritate the hell out of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 thank you then, I did find it quite interesting. I just figured I'd summarize what I had said with two categories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good Friday Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I [b]am not[/b] talking about a goddess. I am absolutely, totally opposed to any discussion of any goddess in Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I know you're not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spathariossa Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 22 2005, 10:15 PM'] I [b]am not[/b] talking about a goddess. I am absolutely, totally opposed to any discussion of any goddess in Christianity. [/quote] I know you're not too. I love you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I can feel the love on this thread... oh yeah... but I can no longer feel the relevent discussion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spathariossa Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 22 2005, 10:23 PM'] I can feel the love on this thread... oh yeah... but I can no longer feel the relevent discussion... [/quote] How could you have expected a relevant discussion based on the first post in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts