Masculinity of God

[Semalsia]

Another thing I've been wondering: why is God masculine? Is there a particular reason for this? A good reason? I've understood that God doesn't really have a sex as such. But if so, then why the reference to a male figure?

Would you be offended, if I from now on started to refer to God as She? Would that be heresy? But wouldn't that be better?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jun 19 2005, 04:55 PM']Another thing I've been wondering: why is God masculine? Is there a particular reason for this? A good reason? I've understood that God doesn't really have a sex as such. But if so, then why the reference to a male figure?

Would you be offended, if I from now on started to refer to God as She? Would that be heresy? But wouldn't that be better?
[right][snapback]616255[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There are a number of theological reasons for listing God as a male. He has always been described as such, so Tradition implicates him as a male. (I am speaking of Sacred Tradition, not merely the tradtion of man)

Secondly, and more importantly, God became incarnate as a man. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. If God were a female, then it would be proper to refer to her as she.

Thirdly, Jesus Christ, who had the beatific vision at all times, by virtue of His divine nature, refered to God as Father. In a formal sense and also in an informal sense. Remember, there are instances in which He refers to God as Abba....

Also, as we are taught to pray, we are taught to pray, Our Father.....that again is from the mouth of Christ.

As I have said, there are many theological reasons, however, I have given the most practical and simplistic reasons.....if you'd like it can be delved into on a more formal level....others will add.....as will I....but these are reasons enough not to refer to God as she.....

[Semalsia]

All right. So God has always been referred as a male in the past. Is there a reason God can't be feminine also? Can't God be both, our Father [i]and[/i] our Mother? Can't Jesus be?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jun 19 2005, 05:49 PM']All right. So God has always been  referred as a male in the past. Is there a reason God can't be feminine also? Can't God be both, our Father [i]and[/i] our Mother? Can't Jesus be?
[right][snapback]616275[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No, that is contrary to Natural law....and while God can break any law, he will not. Since Jesus was a real incarnate man, no, he cannot be a woman.....it would be like me saying, ok, now that I have lived 33 years as a man, now I really think that I should be a woman.....doesn't work.

God is no more a woman than I am.....

Incidentally, it is not only the past, but also the present. And Sacred Tradition presents and villifies a truth....one that cannot change.

[Jaime]

Also it is widely known that God has never had to use a map

[Snowcatpa]

But while Jesus, who is God, was flesh and blood as a man, is that really a good reason to limit God as such? I can understand why we say God the Father, because of tradition, because of Scripture, because of Jesus's words, but couldn't we use or invent some non-sexual term for God since he is both? He can't just be "male" - cause isn't that ascribing to "God the Father" earthly characteristics that are outside the scope and magnititude of who He is?

[Crispy]

God is above gender, he isnt really either, but Jesus on earth is a man because through Jesus God has bound himself in our world where u must be either man or woman.maybe the reason he chose to be a mna on earth is b/c he created adam first.

[Cam42]

Quite simply put, no. Since when has the Church ever entered into innovation?

It is not limiting God by calling him Father, but rather it is a complete understanding of God. There has never been a time in all of creation where God is limited by the fact that we call Him, Father.

It is a fallacy to think that God is limited by anything that a man ascribes to Him.

[Snowcatpa]

If it's not limiting to call him Father, why is it still wrong to call God Mother, if, characteristics of the life-giving God that are characteristically feminine are better described by using the term Mother in conjunction with Father? (those characteristics I mean like, exceedingly empathetic, life-giving and life-bearing, stuff like that)I don't mean to cause trouble, I'm just really interested in the justification for this kind of thing

[Socrates]

God has revealed Himself to us as Father, and Jesus is His Son, and for this reason Christians should refer to Him as such, rather than as female or neuter.

If you are not Christian, you may not beleive this, but Christians have a reason for speaking and beleiving as we do.

It is true that God the Father, being pure spirit, has no body, and therefore is not male or female in the biological sense, but human masculinity and fatherhood is a reflection of the nature of the Divine Fatherhood, not the other way around.

God is not feminine or androgynous.
God is the active principle in creation, and as such His role is reflected by the role of the father.

And of course, Jesus was True Man (a male) and God was His Father.
Mary was His mother.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said:
"God Himself has told us how to speek of Him."

[Apotheoun]

Pope Benedict already addressed this problem many years ago, and at that time he pointed out that if Christianity were merely a philosophical theory about God's nature, i.e., a creation of man's own mind, then certainly man would be free to refer to God in whatever way he wanted (e.g., as father or mother, sister or brother, he or she, etc.). But as the future Pope explained:

[quote]. . . Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our own mind.  Christianity is not 'our' work; it is a [i]Revelation[/i]; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose.  Consequently, we are not authorized to change the [i]Our Father[/i] into an [i]Our Mother[/i]; the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible; it is based on the same Man-God relationship that He came to reveal to us.  Even less is it permissible to replace Christ with another figure.  But what radical feminism – at times even that which asserts that it is based on Christianity – is not prepared to accept is precisely this:  the exemplary, universal, unchangeable relationship between Christ and the Father. [[u]The Ratzinger Report[/u], page 97][/quote]
Attempts to alter the language of revelation will only harm the Church, and many of those who push for this kind of change have lost sight of the apophatic nature of all theological language. They have lost sight of the fact that God is not Father in the sense that a man is a father, and so they have failed to see that God's Fatherhood transcends any merely human expression or conceptualization.

The Fatherhood of God is founded upon the transcendent relationship that exists between the first person of the Trinity (i.e., the Father), as the source of Godhead, and His only-begotten Son and His life-creating Spirit. It is a dogma of divine and catholic faith that the Son receives His hypostatic existence through an act of eternal generation from the hypostasis of the Father, while the Spirit receives His hypostatic origin from the Father through an act of eternal spiration.

Now because the Trinity is a dogma, a Christian is not free to alter the language of revelation in order to suit the changing whims of modern culture; instead, he is bound to accept what Christ has revealed. In other words, a Christian's experience of God is not founded upon his own inept efforts to reach up to God, it is rather a gift of grace made possible by the condescension of God in the incarnation, for by the power of the incarnation the eternal Logos fills man with divine energy and lifts him up into the uncreated life and glory of the Triune God.

[photosynthesis]

In the Bible, Christ is called the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride. We (the church) are supposed to relate to God in a feminine way, i.e. recieving His gifts and blessings and bearing His life within us. We call the Church "Holy Mother Church" because we are both children of God the Father in Heaven, and His Bride, the Church on earth.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 20 2005, 02:26 AM']If it's not limiting to call him Father, why is it still wrong to call God Mother, if, characteristics of the life-giving God that are characteristically feminine are better described by using the term Mother in conjunction with Father? (those characteristics I mean like, exceedingly empathetic, life-giving and life-bearing, stuff like that)I don't mean to cause trouble, I'm just really interested in the justification for this kind of thing
[right][snapback]616327[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Women don't create life, they harbour it.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]
[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 19 2005, 09:39 PM']It is true that God the Father, being pure spirit, has no body, and therefore is not male or female in the biological sense, but human masculinity and fatherhood  is a reflection of the nature of the Divine Fatherhood, not the other way around.

God is not feminine or androgynous.
God is the active principle in creation, and as such His role is reflected by the role of the father.

And of course, Jesus was True Man (a male) and God was His Father.
Mary was His mother.
[right][snapback]616335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jun 19 2005, 11:43 PM']But as the future Pope explained:
Attempts to alter the language of revelation will only harm the Church, and many of those who push for this kind of change have lost sight of the apophatic nature of all theological language. They have lost sight of the fact that God is not Father in the sense that a man is a father, and so they have failed to see that God's Fatherhood transcends any merely human expression or conceptualization. 

The Fatherhood of God is founded upon the transcendent relationship that exists between the first person of the Trinity (i.e., the Father), as the source of Godhead, and His only-begotten Son and His life-creating Spirit.  It is a dogma of divine and catholic faith that the Son receives His hypostatic existence through an act of eternal generation from the hypostasis of the Father, while the Spirit receives His hypostatic origin from the Father through an act of eternal spiration. 
[right][snapback]616419[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



I'm sorry... I'm a still a little confused. Well.. sort of... from your explanations I can see why it is improper to call God a female or neuter name because the human terminology that we use we are not at liberty to change because it has indeed been divinely revealed. It also makes sense to me why saying such would be against the Church, but I guess it just concerns me because, as much as I'm trying to learn about our relationship with God, especially trying to understand feminist arguments against it and why they're wrong, I don't know how to answer the argument about women always feeling lower or less worthy than men in Christianity. I am a Catholic and I'm trying to learn, but it's difficult for me to understand so I appreciate your patience.

I know how wonderful man and woman are in their distinctive, complementary ways and how each can be fine examples of virtue and holiness. But there's one argument for this I've heard that attacks Christianity for fundamentally making women feel lower, less worthy... because, while Mary, a submissive, perfectly virginally maternal woman, is the Mother of God, and the Church, a female entity, is her bride, God himself and Jesus incarnate are both men? It kinda gives off the impression (superficially I know, but that's why I'm asking) that, you know, men are better than women. Why does it come off this way? What am I reading wrong?

Combined with an all-male clergy, the use of women as symbols of uncleanliness and wickedness in the Bible, and interpretations by renowned saints and scholars it doesn't exactly call to the average young woman of today to love herself as a child of God... I know I'm going to get beraded for saying that, but it doesn't always look inviting. Granted Catholicism is not a superficial religion and one must understand the underlining theology of why this is the true word of God, but it's hard when you read things like, when Thomas Aquinas wrote: "Man is the principle and end of woman, as God is the principle and end of man...Woman exists for the man, not man for the woman"... it kidna makes you think that women are, as the feminist Mary Daly (certainly not representative of the Church) said, "asked in the name of God not so much to accept her inferiority as to believe that, thanks to him, she is the equal of the lordly male". From the surface it seems like women are degraded on one hand and exalted on the other. The terminology used as a just another reflection of this.

This is not what I believe, I know that Christ and the Church are more than that, but I just need to understand. Christ loves male and female but there is divine revelation, like you said.

I am not trying to be heretical and I am a faithful Catholic but I implore you to understand how [i]hard[/i], i mean...degrading, offensive, confusing, contradictory, frustrating, completely against everything that everyone, your mother and grandmother included, worked for to make you have more opportunties, greater self-worth, a better life... this is to read and for modern young women to understand...but I do want to. Clearly I'm seeing this the wrong way, I just need to know where...and how to see it the right way so that I can defend the Church's teachings too. How do I answer this?
[/color]