God as much of a woman as a man

[Ethalee]

I have been away for a couple of days, it's late here, and I don't have time to respond to this in full.

In short, though, I basically completely disagree with you on every point. God is not a man. Authority does not belong exclusively to men. And patriarchy is a dangerous and damaging way to structure society, a result of the fall and not at all what God intended for his good creation.

That belief is not Christian at all, the bible is very clear about our roles as men and women, again
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Ephesians 5:22-23

What you are advocating for (anti-patriarchy) completely undermines the divine family order that is repeatedly demanded of us in scripture. One of the most solid proofs of God's existence is how men and women are mentally and biologically so different in a way that makes them perfectly fit the roles that the bible instructs them to take up in which men to rule over women, and women submit

 

[Religiot]

Disclaimer to male readers: I am a straight and manly 6 foot 200 pound man, who is red blooded and I am not a progressive or “feminist” or liberal. It’s ok to keep reading and not just dismiss it because you think I’m a woman.

God is a spirit being. God had no gender or physical representation. While Jesus manifested as a male human, he existed as a member of the triune God for eternity before creation.
While it can be argued Jesus is entirely male, there is no scriptural defense for the position that God is male in any way.


The scriptures use the male pronoun to refer to God by default, through translation, and because the scriptures were written in patriarchal societies where the male pronoun would be used for a deity.

As Goddess is a spirit and gender free, she does not have a gender.

The previous sentence sounds weird and is inaccurate. It also doesn’t use common scriptural male terms for God so it feels uncomfortable. However, it is equally as inaccurate as the following sentence:

As God is a spirit and gender free he does not have a gender.

God is not male. It’s OK to admit it, it won’t make you turn blue.

but seriously, where am I wrong, any scripture to demonstrate God is male? Do you have a problem with my perspective here shared (other than my Lame jokes) or is it acceptable theologically.

thanks! I’m mostly trying this out because I want to talk to my pastor about it but I don’t want to miss anything important. Thanks!

If you value God's word more than your opinion, then the following is all you need to know that God is masculine, for both man and woman are in His image, but man bears also His glory while woman does not; moreover, both male and female are man (Genesis 5:1-2)--the distinction being that one bears His glory, while the other does not:

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." --1 Corinthians 11:1-16

So it follows that the manifestation of God in the flesh would be in the form of a masculine man.

When Philip asked the Lord to show them the Father, the Lord said:

"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" --John 14:9

To see Christ is to see God, for God is invisible, but Christ is not--He is God revealing Himself, visibly, for God cannot be seen:

"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." --Colossians 1:15

PS: Size and weight have absolutely nothing to do with manliness. Some of the most feminine men I've ever met, where very large, and muscular.

 

[Paidiske]

That belief is not Christian at all, the bible is very clear about our roles as men and women, again
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Ephesians 5:22-23

What you are advocating for (anti-patriarchy) completely undermines the divine family order that is repeatedly demanded of us in scripture. One of the most solid proofs of God's existence is how men and women are mentally and biologically so different in a way that makes them perfectly fit the roles that the bible instructs them to take up in which men to rule over women, and women submit

Neither of those diagrams is accurate. Husbands and wives are to submit to one another; to be one flesh; to be equal partners in marriage and life. (Ephesians 5:21 is the key verse which conditions all that follows).

Not husband over wife, or wife over husband; but both together in unity.

And actually men and women are not so different; the range of difference across all men, or across all women, is much, much bigger than the difference between the "average" man or the "average" woman. (That is to say, our gifts, talents, personalities and so on are not particularly determined by gender).

 

[Philip_B]

That belief is not Christian at all, the bible is very clear about our roles as men and women, again

1 Timothy 2:11-15
Ephesians 5:22-23​

What you are advocating for (anti-patriarchy) completely undermines the divine family order that is repeatedly demanded of us in scripture. One of the most solid proofs of God's existence is how men and women are mentally and biologically so different in a way that makes them perfectly fit the roles that the bible instructs them to take up in which men to rule over women, and women submit

1 Timothy 2:15
Yet she (the woman) will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.​

This of course is a difficult passage, for not only does it support an abusive patriarchal model, it essentially deems them woman's personal faith as largely irrelevant as her fate is determined by the man. This view denies the dignity accorded women in other parts of scripture, including Genesis 1, and has been used to justify the abuse of women while abusers quietly pat the text and think they have been given some divine right which they most certainly do not have.

My view is that supporting such an understanding is to give license to some essentially unchristian behaviour. I also note that we are wandering off thread here, as the essence of the thread discussion has to do with the usefulness of understanding the Gender of God in terms of masculinity and femininity or not.

 

[ewq1938]

Interesting discussion but it's pretty off topic to the OP.

 

[Ethalee]

Neither of those diagrams is accurate. Husbands and wives are to submit to one another; to be one flesh; to be equal partners in marriage and life. (Ephesians 5:21 is the key verse which conditions all that follows).

Not husband over wife, or wife over husband; but both together in unity.

And actually men and women are not so different; the range of difference across all men, or across all women, is much, much bigger than the difference between the "average" man or the "average" woman. (That is to say, our gifts, talents, personalities and so on are not particularly determined by gender).

This biblical revisionism is pretty blasphemous, how is the chart not accurate when there are literal biblical verses that instruct that the wife is under the husband, and that the husband is under Christ? Repeatedly.

You also took the quote out of context because immediately after it says "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

To deny this quote is to deny what the bible calls for us in marriage.

As for women and men not having strong differences @OrdineeeBe, who has spent his whole life studying biology and the disparity between men and women made an extremely lengthy post about the difference in men and women's neocortical neurons and how their brain densities make us both extremely different (in a way that compliments eachother) but it got taken down for "flaming"

1 Timothy 2:15
Yet she (the woman) will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.​

This of course is a difficult passage, for not only does it support an abusive patriarchal model, it essentially deems them woman's personal faith as largely irrelevant as her fate is determined by the man. This view denies the dignity accorded women in other parts of scripture, including Genesis 1, and has been used to justify the abuse of women while abusers quietly pat the text and think they have been given some divine right which they most certainly do not have.

My view is that supporting such an understanding is to give license to some essentially unchristian behaviour. I also note that we are wandering off thread here, as the essence of the thread discussion has to do with the usefulness of understanding the Gender of God in terms of masculinity and femininity or not.

If a man twists these quotes to abuse his wife then he is not following the scripture because the same scripture also calls for men to treat there wives with extreme love
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself" - Ephesians 5:25-28

We love our children as well and our children are under us, that does not mean we hate our children just that we hold authority over them and we protect them. To claim that gender roles are inherently abusive is absurd. To also claim the passage is difficult, implies you reject the passage when we should accept the bible and it's teachings in full. Not cherrypick based on what we want to believe. Genesis 1 is just the creation story, it doesn't counter any of these verses either

Interesting discussion but it's pretty off topic to the OP.

I do not think it is off topic to the OP because if we can get these people to accept the disparity between men and women's roles in scripture than on a wild scale it disproves this false notion that God is "just as much of a woman than a man" and some sort of genderless being. His authority is a male authority just on a wider scale.

 

[Ethalee]

Then why is Eve used as an example of why women should not have spiritual authority over a man? Why did Satan target Eve and not Adam? Limiting it to the physical is presumption on your part and doesn't jive with the truth.

So refreshing to see someone in this thread following the bible and not twisting scripture for a worldly agenda

 

[Sam81]

So refreshing to see someone in this thread following the bible and not twisting scripture for a worldly agenda

Thank you but to be honest with you I got kind of irritated and I said a few things that were a little harsh. I do believe that men and women are equal in the eyes of God but the roles are very different and it upsets me when I see people trying to distort things.

 

[Sam81]

I'll also say this, that women shouldn't envy men's position, as I really believe that a lot of husbands are going to split hell wide open because of how they led their families.

 

[Ethalee]

Thank you but to be honest with you I got kind of irritated and I said a few things that were a little harsh. I do believe that men and women are equal in the eyes of God but the roles are very different and it upsets me when I see people trying to distort things.

I completely agree, they are equal in the sense that their different roles are equally as important and to shatter either of these roles is to shatter the family structure

 

[GaveMeJoy]

Thank you but to be honest with you I got kind of irritated and I said a few things that were a little harsh. I do believe that men and women are equal in the eyes of God but the roles are very different and it upsets me when I see people trying to distort things.

I intentionally tried to avoid the concept of authority and gender roles in the OP because that wasn’t what I want to talk about, and I have always shared a conservative position on marriage roles. I wanted to discuss the fact that God is a spirit being and has no gender/sex, and that he has qualities that embody what our culture has determined is masculine as well as traits that our culture has determined are feminine. He is not masculine. He is God. Masculine and feminine are culturally subjective, changing, and God is not bound by these character sets.

Unfortunately, well meaning sexists Christian men can’t resist diving into their perceived authority advantage over sisters in Christ. So they derail the theological discussion about God’s lack of gender and use it as an opportunity to assert male dominance. It’s fine tho I learned a TON from this thread, I’m glad it blew up, and thanks for your contributions

 

[GaveMeJoy]

God the Father is Spirit. But even setting that aside, think like a Hebrew.

Elohim (the common title for God the Father) is plural - and can be males, females, or a mixed group.

Jesus was and is, of course, male.

The noun, Ruach HaKedosh, the Holy Spirit, is a feminine noun.

God is neither a "god" or a "Goddess." We say "He" out of tradition. It's a silly thing to argue about. God is neither, and both.

I think it’s an important thing to argue about because 75% of the men posting in this thread have an unintentionally sexist and damaging view of God as a masculine male figure, and that Women aren’t created in Gods image only men, which demeans and devalues women (AKA our SISTERS in CHRIST). But I agree with you, God is not male or female nor is he bound by what our culture determines is masculine or feminine. The funniest part is people saying “God is masculine” in this thread literally have no idea that there have been cultures all over the world who definite masculine and feminine traits the opposite as white Anglo Saxon Protestant men... so what they are actually saying by saying God is masculine is “God is 21st century American masculine” which is preposterous.

 

[GaveMeJoy]

Peter doesn't say women are weaker, he tells men to be understanding towards their wives, as towards someone weaker. So in like manner as you would treat someone weaker, so treat your wives. It is an instruction on how to behave, it isn't declaring women as weaker.

THANK GOD. It’s amazing what a little reading comprehension can do....men who use this verse to try and demonstrate women are weaker are demonstrating they are weaker than all of us, regardless of gender.

 

[Paidiske]

This biblical revisionism is pretty blasphemous, how is the chart not accurate when there are literal biblical verses that instruct that the wife is under the husband, and that the husband is under Christ? Repeatedly.

That is not the whole picture. It is one part of a much more complex, nuanced Scriptural witness.

We love our children as well and our children are under us, that does not mean we hate our children just that we hold authority over them and we protect them. To claim that gender roles are inherently abusive is absurd.

To infantilise women is inherently abusive; it denies our agency, our giftedness, and our vocations from God.

I do not think it is off topic to the OP because if we can get these people to accept the disparity between men and women's roles in scripture than on a wild scale it disproves this false notion that God is "just as much of a woman than a man" and some sort of genderless being. His authority is a male authority just on a wider scale.

I agree it's not off topic to the OP, as demonstrated here; because people use the claim that God is male to justify demeaning and oppressing women.

 

[ewq1938]