- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
10 Apr 11
Originally posted by mikelomCarrie Snow has an answer to that question.
and not 'She' or 'It'?
It is an ultimate entity, if it exists.
And why can't it be a 'She', just as much a 'He', for that matter?
Female comments are openly invited, so as for unsexist analogies to run a matter of true course. 😉
-m.
10 Apr 11
Originally posted by mikelomBecause most of the commentators are male. I have heard women refer to God as 'She', but none of them got recorded in the Bible or Church texts.
and not 'She' or 'It'?
It is an ultimate entity, if it exists.
And why can't it be a 'She', just as much a 'He', for that matter?
Female comments are openly invited, so as for unsexist analogies to run a matter of true course. 😉
-m.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by mikelomWell, it is certainly true that Christianity has traditionally understood God as male. This is not to say, however, that God is physically male nor to exclude feminine qualities of God. Scripture does present readers with a number of maternal images of God. For example, God is described as a 'womb' (I think this is in Jeremiah.) Jesus himself likens himself to a hen, if I recall correctly. The reason God is male, at least as early Christians understood, is because of His double status as father of creation and husband to mankind.
and not 'She' or 'It'?
It is an ultimate entity, if it exists.
And why can't it be a 'She', just as much a 'He', for that matter?
Female comments are openly invited, so as for unsexist analogies to run a matter of true course. 😉
-m.
It would be a mistake to read this as misogynistic or as a relic of Hebraic patriarchy. One of the implications of this theology is that mankind relates to God as a woman. Israel is the bride of God; the Church is the bride of Christ (see Ephesians 5.) Mankind, ironically, relates to God as a female. God's masculinity only affirms the dignity of womanhood as much as God loves and saves His Church.
10 Apr 11
Originally posted by Conrau KJudeo-Christian or Islamic concepts of Religion are based on an Extra-Cosmic Creator,an Almighty,Omniscient"Individual" ruling from a heavenly abode,meeting out punishment to sinners and rewards to the virtuous.
Well, it is certainly true that Christianity has traditionally understood God as male. This is not to say, however, that God is physically male nor to exclude feminine qualities of God. Scripture does present readers with a number of maternal images of God. For example, God is described as a 'womb' (I think this is in Jeremiah.) Jesus himself likens ...[text shortened]... masculinity only affirms the dignity of womanhood as much as God loves and saves His Church.
Man or woman is considered primarily a ' body" in which a created soul has been breathed into. Eve being created out of the rib of Adam,has to be inferior to Adam.In Islam the Woman's position is equally-if not more-inferior as compared to Man.
Naturally the omniscient,omnipotent creator had to be called by a label of Maleness-He.
10 Apr 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoEve coming from a Adam's rib is inferior to the man called Adam who came from some part of the earth? Some topsoil is superior to a rib bone? I do not know how God did the recreation but one way is as good as another. Side to side is even. I never have heard the Churches I have been in teach that the woman nor women are inferior. I have heard men and women complain about each other. What else is new?
Judeo-Christian or Islamic concepts of Religion are based on an Extra-Cosmic Creator,an Almighty,Omniscient"Individual" ruling from a heavenly abode,meeting out punishment to sinners and rewards to the virtuous.
Man or woman is considered primarily a ' body" in which a created soul has been breathed into. Eve being created out of the rib of Adam,has to ...[text shortened]... n.
Naturally the omniscient,omnipotent creator had to be called by a label of Maleness-He.
10 Apr 11
Originally posted by mikelomBecause, dunderhead, that's how He refers to Himself.
and not 'She' or 'It'?
It is an ultimate entity, if it exists.
And why can't it be a 'She', just as much a 'He', for that matter?
Female comments are openly invited, so as for unsexist analogies to run a matter of true course. 😉
-m.
For crying out loud! Don't any of you atheists understand anything?
10 Apr 11
3 edits
Originally posted by josephwNo josephw, that's how you and your peers define it. This construct you refer to as "God" (where "God" here is a name) inherits all the traits of its primitive inventors, and so also inherits the masculinity of the, I assert, males which invented it.
Because, dunderhead, that's how [b]He refers to Himself.
For crying out loud! Don't any of you atheists understand anything?[/b]
10 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergSo you say.
No josephw, that's how [b]you and your peers define it. This construct you refer to as "God" (where "God" here is a name) inherits all the traits of its primitive inventors, and so also inherits the masculinity of the, I assert, males which invented it.[/b]
I guess that makes you the authority on God and the Bible.
I stand corrected oh almighty Agerg.