The Gender of G!d

wil

wil

UNeyeR1
Veteran Member
Messages
24,898
Reaction score
4,264
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
I believe this isn't a debate to most of us... While we have been used to male pronouns for G!d, references as Father, He, and Him....it is more than obvious in our world women are the creators of life, and we know G!d created man and woman in "His" image..it does lend for confusion...but if and only if you believe in a literal larger than life anthropomorphic G!d like Michelangelo gave us...

So beyond that and the Episcopal Church or Anglican Church or also known as 'Catholic Lite" is about to make a decision on removing gender specific pronouns from G!d in their books....

The article is interesting... what do you think will happen when this goes official?

https://religionnews.com/2018/08/02/what-the-early-church-thought-about-gods-gender/
 
wil said:
I believe this isn't a debate to most of us...
Click to expand...
Quite

wil said:
... it is more than obvious in our world women are the creators of life ...
Click to expand...
Wil, that's a tad more sentimental than it is scientific :). I'd say otherwise. Nurturers, for example, is more accurate and on a broader context, but creators, no ... that takes at least two.

Personally I think the article is just another piece of PC ephemera that says more about contemporary issues than about scholarship. Won't change anything, really, just another go at broadening appeal in a shrinking marketplace.

BTW, I can defend the use of the masculine pronoun on the grounds of symbolism, and for that reason would resist its removal or re-ascription on the basis of some populist agenda.
 
Last edited:
wil said:
I believe this isn't a debate to most of us... While we have been used to male pronouns for G!d, references as Father, He, and Him....it is more than obvious in our world women are the creators of life, and we know G!d created man and woman in "His" image..it does lend for confusion...but if and only if you believe in a literal larger than life anthropomorphic G!d like Michelangelo gave us...

So beyond that and the Episcopal Church or Anglican Church or also known as 'Catholic Lite" is about to make a decision on removing gender specific pronouns from G!d in their books....

The article is interesting... what do you think will happen when this goes official?

https://religionnews.com/2018/08/02/what-the-early-church-thought-about-gods-gender/
Click to expand...

And to throw a wrench into the idea of God's gender being anything, that is not an Abrahamic idea for most. To my knowledge most Jews, and certainly most if not all Muslims see God as genderless. To be of a certain gender would indicate a pairing, or at least a disconnect with one of his creations of the opposite gender. Pronouns indicating gender are generally well known as Masculine proper. much as plural proper in Quranic translation. From Islamic principles and family structure, Men are the heads of the household, much like most civilizations over the years. This affords him certain rights over his family as well as major responsibilities. Now I'm not going to get into too much of the Islamic view of falilial roles, but it is important to understand the man's role is protect, guide, provide, and assist his family. Allah (God) is the protector of his creation, He has provided guides, he provides all the resources we need, and he has often answered his creation's call for assistance. While women can certainly accomplish these and be quite proficient at it, the burden is put solely on the men. Therefore the language will generally swing toward more powerful and entities above us as He, especially in the Abrahamics. We must also remember that while he holds those responsibilities of men, he also has the best traits of either. The loving, compassionate, and Nurturing aspects are common examples.

Also please note we do not see Allah as having an Image as we could see. he is above us in every way, and that is why searching for physical signs of his existence will always be fruitless.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
And to throw a wrench into the idea of God's gender being anything,
Click to expand...
That is the part beyond debate for most of us...

While G!d was He for most generations, and for most people in every generation...and probably even for most people today....most here consider Her genderless....
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_(word)

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/manus

Man = in possession of 'manus' = hands?

When used in the sense of 'mankind' etc. People weren't so picky then about sexist definitions? When it was written? Before 21st Century lists of shades-of-gender.

Eg: 'demiguy' = someone, male or female, who partially tends to self-identify as a male-gendered being ... sometimes ... I think ...

Gets confusing, imo

(Post edited)
 
Last edited:
'Heaven' becomes yin/yang, which combine in myriad ways to give origination to all forms. I Ching.

'Kether' becomes chockma/binah, which in combination descend down through the sephorith originating all forces and forms. Kaballah

Etc.

Imo
 
Last edited:
gender_symbols_by_caaloba-d81ds6u.png


I think having to write he/she all the time is enough hard work, lol ...
 
Hence the reason the methodists are looking to go to gender neutral pronouns.

It isnt like there has ever been only he and she... There are physically folks who are both genders, there were always in every culture people who were not comfortable in the gender roles of society...or the physical gender their body represented.

Theae have often been condemned, cajoled, or attempted tonbe squashed, by less unserstanding, less compassionate peoples. The change or consideration of change is one of many examples of how the world is imoroving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Sure. But the language becomes long-winded and dense? I suppose there are people who mentally visualise a white-bearded old man in the clouds, that changing the pronoun will put them right ...
 
Last edited:
Waiting to see how: 'The Father, Son and the Holy Ghost' is going to translate?
 
wil said:
Lol, you suppose?
Click to expand...
Mostly the 'new atheists', imo: who have the big problem with the anthropomorphism. It's because they cannot conceive of intelligence/consciousness that is not generated by a material/physical entity.

So therefore God must be, like -- a material creature of some sort. A 'superscientist'. The idea is totally beyond their conceptual reach. It's like trying to explain colour to a blind person, imo.

(Post edited)
 
Last edited:
wil said:
Where is that written in the bible?
Click to expand...
Do you mean did Christ refer to himself as the son of the father? Or to the holy spirit? I'd start with Gospel of John. Perhaps. I don't know exact passage references, off the top of my head.
 
wil said:
Dang Michelangelo and that little painting on that obscure ceiling....wonder where folks get their crazy notions...
Click to expand...
Well, perhaps it was intended to be a little bit symbolic?
 
RJM Corbet said:
Do you mean did Christ refer to himself as the son of the father? Or to the holy spirit? I'd start with Gospel of John. Perhaps. I don't know exact passage references, off the top of my head.
Click to expand...
Nope, the words, Father, son and Holy Ghost in the bible in that format, i think theyll never deal with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
The doctrine and theology of the Trinity is wholly Scripture based.
 
The question, as I read it...was how are they gonna handle Father, son and Holy Ghost in the bible when they try to make everything genderless...

My response was those three words, in that format "Father, son and Holy Ghost " never occur in the bible together like that.

We realize you are a trinitarian just as G!d is without gender... And also, that many believe otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top