Hierarchy of Creation

[Mitchell_b55]

[color="#CC0000"][b]Proof of Hierarchy of Creation[/b][/color]

When the Argument of Creation arose with myself and a friend of mine, whom is a follower of a pagan mysticism that is similar to Stoic Philosophy except with both a Divine Masculine and Divine Feminine I tried first to target the essence or gender of God. I have illustrated what I concluded in another post, but will reiterate.

That to give God a definitive gender isolates Him on a plane of limited human conception. That we in a way make him into an idol, by saying that He must conform to one of the two genders. Human experience makes us want to take this road. However I considered that God is beyond Gender as a pure spirit.

Of course we know that God appears with a fatherly, and masculine countenance. It appears to me that to say he has a fatherly countenance agains isolates Him as bearing OUR image and not us bearing His, thus if Man were the first created, it is the nature of God that we inherit, which in a male later becomes known as a masculine characteristic.

[color="#CC0000"][b]OR...[/b][/color]

GOD = PURE SPIRIT = GENDERLESS [color="#CC0000"][b]BESTOWS[/b][/color] HIS NATURE ON MAN = MAN NOW HAVING NATURE OF GOD = EXPLAINS HIS PROPERTIES AS MASCULINE

IT seems to me that it is not God who is like man, but man who is like God.

Now it seems that the question is settled, but the person asked me what philosophic evidence supports the idea that man was created first.

Is there a good apologetic for the creation of man by God and the creation of woman from man?
This cannot include scripture, but either biological evidence or philosophic evidence.
For me this holds little bearing because I accept the authority of the Church on the matter, but convincing this person requires a little bit less than simple conviction to authority.

It would please me if I could receive some positive responses to this appeal. Thank You.

In Christ my Lord,

[color="#CC0000"][b]Petrus Scholasticus.[/b][/color]

[Lil Red]

moving to TL

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

While your premise is interesting it seems to be flawed in some sense as well. In my studies I find it irrefutable that God is a man as we know God through the incarnation. The early iconoclastic controversy argued to what extent Jesus' essence was tied to the physical, and the fathers of this period of time settled on the idea that you cannot separate Jesus body from His spirit. Peter Kreeft also talks about this in some of his lecture series, that the soul of a man, is male, and the soul of the female is female. This is why you can't have a sex change operation and become female if you are a male in Christian moral theology, who you are, at its essence, is male even if you have mutilated your body.

Jesus, being the same essence as God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit is masculine in nature and it seems, being. This is why it is a grave offense to consider God as 'female' (though arguments can be made between the Holy Spirit and the wisdom literature of the OT in which Wisdom has feminine aspects, this is far reaching).

Edited September 28, 2006 by Jesuspaidtheprice

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

We'll see if this works:
The male is the first actor in human procreation. God is the first actor in Creation. Therefore we attribute the term "masculine" to God, although He trascends gender.

Oh, and Peter Kreeft is the man if you ask me.

Edited September 29, 2006 by thedude