Masculinity of God

[Good Friday]

First, I need to say that I agree that God must be referred to and thought of in masculine terms, and I agree particularly with Apotheoun's argument. So I'm not arguing for referring to God in feminine terms. That said...

[quote name='RandomProddy']Women don't create life, they harbour it.[/quote]
This is simply incorrect. This hearkens back to a time when biological science didn't know what it knows today, and people believed that men implanted a human life in the womb of a woman through sex. We know now, of course, that this is not the case. It takes the meeting of both a man's sperm and a woman's ovum in order to create a human life, and so both man and woman cooperate with God in the creation of children. Saying, therefore, that "women don't create life, they harbor it," is factually incorrect. Both men and women are co-creators with God when it comes to human life, and this is biologically proven to be the case.

Carry on.

[scardella]

[quote] [A man] is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
- 1 Corinthians 11:7 [/quote]

This is just a verse in support of God's paternal relation to Man. In the man-woman relationship, the man images God and the woman images the Church/mankind.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:21 AM'][color=purple]
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]
[right][snapback]616755[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Don't let all that bitter radical feminist rhetoric get to you!
Do you really think the Church "degrades" women? Look at all the honor the Church heaps upon Mary, the Mother of God!

Do you actuallly feel degraded by this, or are you just going by what the dissenting feminists say?

I know plenty of women who do not find the Church's teachings degrading nor seek to change them.

These people are falling into the sin of pride, that of Satan, by not being satisfied with their God-given role, and demanding something else.

Do you really feel degraded and unfulfilled because you can't be a priest?

Mary was never a priest, yet held a position of higher honor than Peter or any of the apostles!

Edited June 20, 2005 by Socrates

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]
I don't think the Church degrades women, persay, they do heap loads of honor on Mary and I respect the differentiation of roles, but my concern is more with valuation of the roles I suppose. Yes the Church totally respects women and Mary above and beyond what society does, to the core of who they are, it's just...

Basically, God was a Man, referred to in masculine words, incarnate as man...Man = God, Woman... woman helper of man... still a noble thing! but helper of man... lower than man..., Woman is not God, only Man is God. You know, that superficial thing. I mean... it looks really judgemental, unequal is expected because we're people and God's God, but it's like, saying God is like one and not like the other kinda gives off a bad vibe to the other, you know? Telling someone that the Church is still totally above and beyond terminology and respects and reveres all people is a great explanation but I still feel it could be more convincing, like there's something missing from the explanation that I haven't heard or understood yet.

There are plenty of women who don't find the teachings degrading, and I don't most of the time... it's just I see how they can be taken that way and I don't know how to defend against that. I'm not upset that I can't be a priest, and it's so wonderful that Mary was more revered than the apostles, but how does that help in the argument that God is still a Man... and a woman is... well... man's helper, man's supporter (noble things, but seemingly not "Godly" for God is not a Woman, he's a Man)?

haha, I'm not a radical feminist, believe me, I'm all about the dignity of men and women in their different roles serving God and for their different gifts, but there are just a lot of holes I need filled in...and this is a big one.
[/color]

[amy]

239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. [b]He is neither man nor woman: he is God.[/b] He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.

So.... I just thought the good ol' CCC might be helpful here... enjoy!

[Snowcatpa]

Thanks

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 19 2005, 05:27 PM']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)

[right][snapback]616267[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I'm not disputing the tradition of referring to God in male terminology..but I am still wondering... [i]He has always been described as such...[/i]
How is that an answer?

If I asked my Mom why we have a Christmas tree when I was 3 and she says...We've always done it...I would not be satisfied with that reply...But your other responses I think make perfect sense...so my question is somewhat unfounded since you gave a complete explanation...But still i don't see how the other two responses-- Jesus had the beatific vision and said Father, that, for example, I except because I believe in Jesus Christ true God and true man, but it might not really explain anything to someone who thinks differently..

I am trying to explain Catholicicm to Hindu, and I say, well we've always done this... it will not satisfy
[i]Why?[/i]
[i]en fine[/i]
(of course the why has already been covered and it makes sense...)

[Quietfire]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Jun 19 2005, 07:36 PM']Also it is widely known that God has never had to use a map
[right][snapback]616294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Or ask for directions.


Had to go there..

[philothea]

[quote name='Snowcatpa' date='Jun 20 2005, 04:52 PM'][color=purple]
Basically, God was a Man, referred to in masculine words, incarnate as man...Man = God, Woman... woman helper of man... still a noble thing! but helper of man... lower than man..., Woman is not God, only Man is God. You know, that superficial thing. I mean... it looks really judgemental, unequal is expected because we're people and God's God, but it's like, saying God is like one and not like the other kinda gives off a bad vibe to the other, you know? Telling someone that the Church is still totally above and beyond terminology and respects and reveres all people is a great explanation but I still feel it could be more convincing, like there's something missing from the explanation that I haven't heard or understood yet.
[/color]
[right][snapback]617180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Maybe more focus on the relationship between you and God would help. What does it matter who has what gender (and what perceived "value" that might have), when God has done so much for [b]you[/b]? In the eucharist, does gender mean anything? If you can receive Jesus himself, what more do you want?

[Semperviva]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jun 24 2005, 03:59 PM']Or ask for directions.
Had to go there..
[right][snapback]622020[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


haaa haaa

.............a New Yorker says this???? pshht...

[Semperviva]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:24 AM']This is just a verse in support of God's paternal relation to Man.  In the man-woman relationship, the man images God and the woman images the Church/mankind.
[right][snapback]616759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


btw...Scardella...or anyone...this verse from corinthians, although I know it can't be, has always seemed like a masogynist verse
it s[i]eems[/i] like its saying....

and woman is [i]just[/i] the glory of man...

even though the just is merely the impression it gives me...so what's the full context of this verse, for one...and what does this really mean? because obviously woman gives glory to God as a woman and not [i]only[/i] in relation to men,
although this is true

Edited June 24, 2005 by Semperviva

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 24 2005, 02:48 PM']btw...Scardella...or anyone...this verse from corinthians, although I know it can't be, has always seemed like a masogynist verses and s[i]eems[/i] like its saying....

and woman is [i]just[/i] the glory of man...
even though the just is merely the impression it gives me...so what's the full context of this verse, for one...and what does this really mean?  because obviously woman gives glory to God as a woman and not [i]only[/i] in relation to men,
although this is true
[right][snapback]622066[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't remember the text saying that woman is "just" the glory of man, but that woman is the glory of man.

[Snowcatpa]

[color=purple]
That's a good point. I'll definitely try to do that. And you're right.. in the Eucharist, gender doesn't mean anything... but, from a perspective, it does mean something when it's translated into other aspects of our faith, which, while I respect, make that more evident. Like, obviously, to be in persona Christi for the Eucharist, the person must be a man. Which then means all the clergy are men and the controlling powers are men and the world thus functions on this underlying principal - that God is man and is not woman. In a personal relationship, you're right, we need to focus on the relationship between ourselves and God - He has done so much for us.

I am so grateful to receive the Eucharist, but as for what more do I want... I want to understand why if there is no gender in God, and he actsin both roles and is above and beyond gender, and came incarnate as a male, thereby cementing very very subtly but still fundamentally.. that God's a man... why we must call God a man and not a woman (which I have already had answered in this post)... and some other perspectives/suggestions/thoughts about what the implications of that are in our world.

Is there anyone else that's kind of jolted by this? Most of the responses I've got in this post have given me excellent ways to see and understand the masculinity of God, which I definitely appreciate, but, especially other Catholics, doesn't the fact that God is a male and thus not a woman bother you or has it ever bothered you and you have another perspective that would help?

As amy pointed out, it says in the Catechism:
"God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature...We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God"

If he's neither and yet has features that are of both and above and beyond anything we could ever imagine... it just jarrs me that God is a Man and not a Woman, in any terminology and that tradition, even though I believe it is right, holds us to that. It doesn't matter on the surface, you're right... it's so much more important to focus on our relationship with God and all that he is given us. But in a very real world, that fundamental distinction has some pretty strong implications for women.
[/color]

[Semperviva]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:24 AM']This is just a verse in support of God's paternal relation to Man.  In the man-woman relationship, the man images God and the woman images the Church/mankind.
[right][snapback]616759[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


right.

it dousn't say just but to me it gives that impression--do you know the historical context or the meaning of the above verse.......por favor..i understand it..i just want to know moooore

Edited June 24, 2005 by Semperviva

[philothea]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 24 2005, 04:48 PM']btw...Scardella...or anyone...this verse from corinthians, although I know it can't be, has always seemed like a masogynist verse
it s[i]eems[/i] like its saying....

and woman is [i]just[/i] the glory of man...

even though the just is merely the impression it gives me...so what's the full context of this verse, for one...and what does this really mean?  because obviously woman gives glory to God as a woman and not [i]only[/i] in relation to men,
although this is true
[right][snapback]622066[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The context is Paul talking about how women should have their heads veiled (and have long hair, too.) At the time, not wearing a veil and/or having short hair was something only improper women did.

I do, um, wonder about one of the stated reasons...

[i](10) for this reason a woman should have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.[/i]


The relationship described: man came from God and woman came from man is from Genesis, of course.

He clarifies a little bit, later: [i] (11)Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord. For just as woman came from man, so man is born of woman; but all things are from God.[/i]

Edited June 24, 2005 by philothea