Masculinity of God

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:26 PM'][. . .]

Now just a few things, Todd while I agree with you that adding the Femmine is bad and frankly I think it is much worse than most here seem too( even you Todd) It think your concern about the Son being catagorized as Mother  and therefore the Father and the Son/mother procreating the Spirt is unfounded for a very basic and simple reason the Spirit would be and will be, and in some cases [i]is[/i] the Target of Femminity of God.  To put it bluntly the Son is Jesus and Jesus has a penis that is just too much abstraction to see as a femminine person for the VAST majority of People--- particularly in the West.  More than that the Holy Spirit is the Person Assosiated with those traits which are concidered Feminine- Comforting being high on the list.  So it will be the Spirit who is to be made Mother not the Son and that WILL COMPLETLY SCREW UP Understanding of the Triune God.

[. . .]
[right][snapback]642188[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Just to let you know, that post was meant as an example of speculative theology run amuck.

That being said, people seem to forget that it is the Son, i.e., the eternal Logos, who is the Holy Wisdom (Sophia) of God, and not the Holy Spirit. After all the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople is dedicated to the Son of God.



But I do agree the modern tendency is to make the Holy Spirit feminine.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:16 PM']I thought I'd interject this, as I believe it pertains to the topic... not necessarily dealing with God being male of female, but rather with the fact that certain women tend to have a hard time dealing with the role of males (i.e. God in particular).
Gen. 3:
God curses the women with a "desire" for her husband.  But this isn't to be read as a sexual desire.  Haha.  That wouldn't be a curse for her, much less the man.  It referes to a desire for her husbands position.  But God immediatly adds "and he will rule over you."  So it is a curse in that while the women will desire to be in her husbands role, he will rule over her.
So I urge our Phatmass sisters not to allow this curse to overcome you.  Our roles are given to us by God and are precious!  God is our Father, and this is GOOD!  We don't need to make Him our mother.  This is a disordered desire brought about by our own attempt to attain the knowledge of good and evil.

God has been revealed to us as our Father.  We need nothing more.

We can explore why... But we should never ever allow the feeling of uncomfort in calling God our Father, or Jesus our King, overcome us.

When this feeling presses you, say an Our Father.

God bless.
[right][snapback]642181[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Are you quite certain this refers to a desire for her husbands [i]role[/i]?? cause i certainly don't want that role of authority...thats alot on you all's shoulder's.....I think it is the easier role to submit to a loving authority, esp. when that authority is in conformance with Christ. Its not really even submission really, then it becomes something greater and deeper...and then all you want is---- to do and to be everything for the love of that man, which some describe as "submission" but I see it as altogether much grander and more beautiful... to submit to the will of the man (providing he is in conformance to God) is a mystery almost similar to entrance into the Paschal mystery.... it seems to me...and that is not hard at all....i mean it is only hard insofar as we reject it, which would be giving into the lie that God is a tyrant and not Love itself.....and if i desire his/man's role then this entrance into the mystery can never take place...and that wasen't waht i meant by disageeing with Todd before. hha maybe i got off topic but the point is i don't know if its really saying woman desire his role....as head...cause i don't want it...lol

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:49 PM']Are you quite certain this refers to a desire for her husbands [i]role[/i]?? cause i certainly don't want that role of authority...thats alot on you all's shoulder's.....I think it is the easier role to submit to a loving authority, esp. when that authority is in conformance with Christ.  Its not really even submission really, then it becomes something greater and deeper...and then all you want is---- to do and to be everything for the love of that man, which some describe as "submission" but I see it as altogether much grander and more beautiful...  to submit to the will of the man (providing he is in conformance to God) is a mystery almost similar to entrance into the Paschal mystery.... it seems to me...and that is not hard at all....i mean it is only hard insofar as we reject it, which would be giving into the lie that God is a tyrant and not Love itself.....and if i desire his/man's role then this entrance into the mystery can never take place...and that wasen't waht i meant by disageeing with Todd before.  hha maybe i got off topic but the point is i don't know if its really saying woman desire his role....as head...cause i don't want it...lol
[right][snapback]642226[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree, while I can't give the personal insight of a woman

I'm not sure that is an orthodox interpretation of that Scripture.

[Socrates]

[quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:50 PM']I don't have time to really deal with this right now, but just to let you know, my interest in this comes from reading Hildegard of Bingen, not from modern feminist thought. In fact, I think that modern feminists misuse what she says. However, you can reject their interpretation of her feminine divine without dismissing Hildegard's use of it (which is not just poetic). I don't know what the proper use of the feminine divine is, but I know there is one.

Regarding your last question: first, it could be turned around "how many women want to follow a masculine God?" That's just not a good enough reason to disregard a large portion of tradition that discusses the motherhood of Christ and the feminine divine.

second, Bernard of Clairvaux for one...
[right][snapback]642156[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I must admit that I am not familiar with the writings of these mystics - but I assume this regards specialized mystical language, rather than a general way of speaking about God. I'd have to see the context to make sense of this.

In regards to your questions, the central issue is that God revealed Himself as Father, and His Son became incarnate as a man. And most women I know are quite happy following male leadership - it's only feminists that have a problem with this!

However, portraying Christ (a man) as being somehow feminine or womanly, is quite problematic. It's bad enough that we have all those effeminate-looking holy-card-style pictures of Jesus. What good would speaking of Christ as feminine do? Who wants to worship or follow a "girly-man" or some divine sissy? Quite frankly, I don't buy this! (Sorry if this sounds irreverent, but we must look at the practical consequences of attempting to feminize Christ on the human imagination.)

God revealed Himself as Father, and we should accept this. What good would using feminine language to describe God do? While it is true that God transcends gender, focusing on Him as both masculine and feminine, or completely beyond gender, makes Him seem in the imagination either androgynous or bisexual, or an impersonal being or force. Neither is how God revealed HImself, or How He wishes us to relate to Him.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:48 PM']That being said, people seem to forget that it is the Son, i.e., the eternal Logos, who is the Holy Wisdom (Sophia) of God, and not the Holy Spirit.  After all the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople is dedicated to the Son of God.

[right][snapback]642225[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yeah....

......I am wondering, in the Old Testament, Wisdom Incarnate was the [i]Torah[/i] the word made flesh in the scripture so to speak? So, in the light of Christ, since all scripture is Christocentric, are all Old Testament reference to Wisdom references to Christ.....(sorry again Todd!!!!!)

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:51 PM']I agree, while I can't give the personal insight of a woman 

I'm not sure that is an orthodox interpretation of that Scripture.
[right][snapback]642232[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yup don't think its about roles there, but hey, i know nothing

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:00 PM']yeah....

......I am wondering, in the Old Testament, Wisdom Incarnate was the [i]Torah[/i] the word made flesh in the scripture so to speak?  So, in the light of Christ, since all scripture is Christocentric, are all Old Testament reference to Wisdom references to Christ.....(sorry again Todd!!!!!)
[right][snapback]642244[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Not all, because some are applied to Mary. It should also be borne in mind that scripture is polyvalent, and so there are often various layers of meaning within a given text.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 13 2005, 02:54 PM'] What good would speaking of Christ as feminine do? 
[right][snapback]642234[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

i promise i am not trying to be pernicious or uncharitable, but, Christ did, although rarely reference himself analogously in feminine, maternal desription....[b]NOT[/b] that we should emphasize this by any means, NONono, not at all, but it [i]is[/i] there and it [i]is true[/i]... I really doubt Christ was like the Arnold Schwartzo type or else his closest followers ie, followers up to passion and death, would have been men and woman, and not woman and John (what i mean by this is.this is total speculation on my part.....if Christ [b]alway[/b]s appeared all manly and strong before the romans took him away, the male apostles would have had no thought to flee, it seems--cause they already had [b]already seeeen[/b] the manifestation of his glory and power (at least three of them had, james John and Peter) ...so what made them flee? maybe he just looked weak and helpless, in fact, he was physically weak, he sweat blood, physically weak at that point or maybe i should say made himself weak so we could be strong?) so although those holy cards are somewhat feminine...Christ, in beckoning, opening his arms, [i]receiving our love[/i], is acting in the feminine postiion as with the sacred heart image, which is why those holy cards maybe seem womanly

Edited July 13, 2005 by Semperviva

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:11 PM']Not all, because some are applied to Mary.  It should also be borne in mind that scripture is polyvalent, and so there are often various layers of meaning within a given text.
[right][snapback]642257[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

righto. so mary is Wisdom as well? in what way?

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:49 PM']Are you quite certain this refers to a desire for her husbands [i]role[/i]?? cause i certainly don't want that role of authority...thats alot on you all's shoulder's.....I think it is the easier role to submit to a loving authority, esp. when that authority is in conformance with Christ.  Its not really even submission really, then it becomes something greater and deeper...and then all you want is---- to do and to be everything for the love of that man, which some describe as "submission" but I see it as altogether much grander and more beautiful...  to submit to the will of the man (providing he is in conformance to God) is a mystery almost similar to entrance into the Paschal mystery.... it seems to me...and that is not hard at all....i mean it is only hard insofar as we reject it, which would be giving into the lie that God is a tyrant and not Love itself.....and if i desire his/man's role then this entrance into the mystery can never take place...and that wasen't waht i meant by disageeing with Todd before.  hha maybe i got off topic but the point is i don't know if its really saying woman desire his role....as head...cause i don't want it...lol
[right][snapback]642226[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What you are describing is how it SHOULD be. And I should clarify that while we don't submit that God changed Eve so that she had this desire (an active Curse), the desire was a result of the choice that Eve made.

You are absolutely right, and by the Grace of God, through the Teachings and Sacraments of His Church we can be renewed and understand how wonderful it is to have things in order. Christ set them in order:

Eph. 5:

[quote]24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

    25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her[/quote]


But in the fall of man, God told woman that her desire would be for her husband and he would rule her. Here "desire" in this respect had become disordered.

You are right to say these things. And you are right in knowing that the burden is indeed lighter. But look around at the "feminist" movement, and you will see how this curse at the fall has gripped so many women.

[quote]Consequently, the aftermath of Eve’s sin is to be deduced from the clause “And your desire shall be toward your husband.” [b]In other words, because of her sin, and the subsequent proclivity to sin which became a punishment for the human race (i.e., concupiscence), Eve will desire to rule over Adam, but God will see to it that Adam continues to rule over her[/b].[/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/mulieris--dignitatem6.htm"]http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/ar...dignitatem6.htm[/url]

[quote]Consider Adam and Eve, probably the best known story of disobedience in scripture. God commanded Adam to guard the garden and his wife. Adam was to follow God, and Eve to follow Adam. [b]Instead, Eve disobeyed her husband and followed her own wants. Adam did not stand up to his wife, but followed her instead, reversing the order of submission.[/b] God chastises Adam, assigning him a life of sweat and hardship “because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree.” (Genesis 3:17) To Eve, he awards painful childbirth, “yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16) [/quote]

[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm[/url]

and...

[quote][b]God's decisive words to the woman after the first sin express the kind of relationship which has now been introduced between man and woman: “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” [/b](Gn 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and [b]replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other[/b]. Indeed the story of humanity is continuously marked by this situation, which recalls the three-fold concupiscence mentioned by Saint John: the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life (cf. 1 Jn 2:16). In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan, are lost.[/quote]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...oration_en.html[/url]

In fact this was an excellent doc. written by our very own + Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect - approved by John Paul the Great. It really describes the wonderful role women have in the Church, etc. Very very important.



Sorry, again... Didn't want to take it off topic. But thought I'd point it out.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Jake Huether

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:11 PM']i promise i am not trying to be pernicious or uncharitable, but, Christ did, although rarely reference himself analogously in feminine, maternal desription....[b]NOT[/b] that we should emphasize this by any means, NONono, not at all, but it [i]is[/i] there and it [i]is true[/i]... I really doubt Christ was like the Arnold Schwartzo type or else his closest followers ie, followers up to passion and death, would have been men and woman, and not woman and John (what i mean by this is.this is total speculation on my part.....if Christ [b]alway[/b]s appeared all manly and strong before the romans took him away, the male apostles would have had no thought to flee, it seems--cause they already had [b]already seeeen[/b] the manifestation of his glory and power (at least three of them had, james John and Peter) ...so what made them flee?  maybe he just looked weak and helpless, in fact, he was physically weak, he sweat blood, physically weak at that point or maybe i should say made himself weak so we could be strong?) so although those holy cards are somewhat feminine...Christ, in beckoning, opening his arms,  [i]receiving our love[/i], is acting in the feminine postiion as with the sacred heart image, which is why those holy cards maybe seem womanly
[right][snapback]642258[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not sure exactly what you're trying to get at here, but I see nothing in the gospels to indicate that Christ was weak or feminine. Jesus allowed Himself to take on weak human nature (He was able to suffer physical exhaustion and weakness like any other man - as He experienced the Passion), but this does not mean he was particularly weak or unmanly. (As Mel Gibson said, He had to be God to take all that!)
I'm not saying He looked like Ahhnold, or some 'roid-head, but He had to withstand the rigors of a tough life of wandering, and previously worked as carpenter (when all work had to be done by muscle.), and He withstood 40 days fasting in the desert - a lot tougher than me there! So it is highly unlikely that He was some soft, effeminate, androgynous type, as portrayed in those sappy pastel holy-card images.

Edited July 13, 2005 by Socrates

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:12 PM']righto. so mary is Wisdom as well? in what way?
[right][snapback]642263[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Mary is represented in the tradition as the Fountain of Wisdom, House of Wisdom, Seat of Wisdom, etc., and various biblical texts dealing with wisdom can be applied to her, bearing in mind the polyvalent nature of the texts. The same holds with texts about the Ark of the Covenant, which can also be applied to Mary, and even some Christological texts, like Psalm 16, which is applied both to Christ and the Mary.

[i]Note:[/i] The older Roman Rite tended to assign readings from the wisdom literature for Marian feasts, but for some reason this has been suppressed in the modern Roman Rite.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Jake, the following quote, which you posted, defeats your interpretation:

[quote] Instead, Eve disobeyed her husband and followed her own wants. Adam did not stand up to his wife, but followed her instead, reversing the order of submission.[/quote]

If the order of submission was, as you claim it to be, an [i]effect[/i] of Original sin, then clearly there was no order of submission before that sin. If there was no order of submission before sin, then no order was reversed, for reversal implies an existing thing which changes.

But, as your quote shows, there [i]was[/i] reversal. Therefore, Eve's curse is not her submission to her husband, or desire for submission to her husband, because that is precisely what was reversed by her sin, and no effect can be the cause of its own cause.

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:36 PM']Eastern Orthodoxy has a different understanding of original sin, and so it really doesn't need the dogma of the Immaculate Conception the way that the Latin Church does.  Most Eastern Orthodox hold that Mary possessed the divine energies from the beginning of her existence, which would be the equivalent of the Western doctrine, but no Eastern Orthodox person would ever hold that Mary was free from the "stain" of original sin, because they don't believe there is such a thing as a "stain" of original sin.  That's an Augustinian idea, and Augustine has had no influence on the theology of the East.
[right][snapback]642145[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

AAAhh! Eastern theology is soooo cool...so cool...

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:28 PM']What you are describing is how it SHOULD be.  And I should clarify that while we don't submit that God changed Eve so that she had this desire (an active Curse), the desire was a result of the choice that Eve made. 

You are absolutely right, and by the Grace of God, through the Teachings and Sacraments of His Church we can be renewed and understand how wonderful it is to have things in order.  Christ set them in order:

Eph. 5:
But in the fall of man, God told woman that her desire would be for her husband and he would rule her.  Here "desire" in this respect had become disordered.

You are right to say these things.  And you are right in knowing that the burden is indeed lighter.  But look around at the "feminist" movement, and you will see how this curse at the fall has gripped so many women.
[url="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/mulieris--dignitatem6.htm"]http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/ar...dignitatem6.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm[/url]

and...
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...oration_en.html[/url]

In fact this was an excellent doc. written by our very own + Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect - approved by John Paul the Great.  It really describes the wonderful role women have in the Church, etc.  Very very important.
Sorry, again... Didn't want to take it off topic.  But thought I'd point it out.
[right][snapback]642294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hhhhhhhhhmmm, interesting, well, i dunno, I guess the whole desire for authority over men just doesn't appeal to me then...(except authority in a different sense, authority to help change hearts towards God, a more subtle directing if you will, not a domination) .....at all...ok well, feminists, it seems to me, they want a distorted form of equality rather headship, or maybe they do want headship, in that case, you are perfectly right and i just don't understand modern feminism at all...

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:35 PM']Mary is represented in the tradition as the Fountain of Wisdom, House of Wisdom, Seat of Wisdom, etc., and various biblical texts dealing with wisdom can be applied to her, bearing in mind the polyvalent nature of the texts.  The same holds with texts about the Ark of the Covenant, which can also be applied to Mary, and even some Christological texts, like Psalm 16, which is applied both to Christ and the Mary.
[right][snapback]642303[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
coolness...yes i was forgetting about all that...yes the Ark of the Covannent- BTW

important question for baptist friend of mine (who will not long be Baptist, LOL )

......what is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew [i]Shekinah[/i], used by St. Luke to describe the "[i]overshadowing[/i]" of the Holy Spirit upon Mary....Luke deliberetely uses the same TERMINOLOGY in Luke's Gospel AS when David danced before the Ark of the Covanent, I believe, in order to show how MARY is the NEW ark of the covanent...NOW, what is the Greek word for "overshadow" ????????? anyone?