God as much of a woman as a man

[Sparagmos]

There is nothing in The Bible that says God The Father is a spiritual being, the majority of Genesis talks about creating Adam in his image specifically, and how humans in general are like him. In Genesis it even said that the thing that was most separating us from God was the tree of life, immortality. Everything in scripture seems to indicate that God The Father is a humanoid, physical, male, immortal being.

Like Zeus, huh?

 

[OrdineeeBe]

Like Zeus, huh?

What's that supposed to mean? Why bring a pagan god into this?

 

[Sparagmos]

What's that supposed to mean? Why bring a pagan god into this?

It’s the easiest comparison to what you are saying.

 

[Billy UK]

.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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!

God created Adam in His image. It was God's intent that man should also be in God's image. If Adam had eaten from the tree of Life, we would not be having this conversation. God uses male speech to speak of Himself. God is Father, God is He. From our point of view and our understanding, God is male.

Eve was taken from Adam, which is symbolic of the church being taken out of Christ. As Adam was caused to sleep so that Eve could be formed, so the Lord Jesus "slept" - a euphemism for death. I don't believe it is helpful to mess with the Bible. I do not believe that God can rightly be called Goddess. Worshipping females is occult and/or pagan.

In Christ, there is neither male or female. (Real) Christians are equal in God's sight. However, God appoints various roles to each one who is born again. Many of the problems in the Christian life are due to neglect of the ministries that God has given. A foot trying to be an eye is a recipe for trouble. Most churches don't even consider the calling that the members might have. Control and ministry is centred on the pastor in most cases. Yet the role of pastor barely rates a mention in the New Testament. How far we have drifted from God's plan and purpose.

Robert Morris has good insight into this issue.

 

[Billy UK]

.

 

[Paidiske]

God made Adam in his image, are you stating that Adam was not a man.

.

God made humankind - male and female - in God's image. Men are not closer to the image of God than women, but we bear that image together.

Also Jesus Christ who was God manifest in the flesh he was manifested as male and his ressurected body is in heaven.

Yes. But the point that is important is Christ's assumption of humanity, not his maleness.

 

[Billy UK]

.

 

[Paidiske]

On the contrary. I am preaching Genesis 1:27.

"So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."

 

[Radagast]

God made humankind - male and female - in God's image. Men are not closer to the image of God than women, but we bear that image together.

One of the really important points is that image doesn't mean physical shape, as some people seem to think.

Genesis 1:27 says "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

Yes. But the point that is important is Christ's assumption of humanity, not his maleness.

And that also bears repeating, over and over again, it seems.

 

[Radagast]

The woman was taken out the man according to Genesis.

Nobody is denying that.

What your preaching is a Queen of heaven doctrine

Nobody is doing that.

It is unfortunate if the O.P. sounded a bit like that.

 

[Billy UK]

.

 

[prodromos]

There is nothing in The Bible that says God The Father is a spiritual being, the majority of Genesis talks about creating Adam in his image specifically, and how humans in general are like him. In Genesis it even said that the thing that was most separating us from God was the tree of life, immortality. Everything in scripture seems to indicate that God The Father is a humanoid, physical, male, immortal being.

John 4:24

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.​

 

[Billy UK]

.

 

[Paidiske]

Yet Jesus told us to pray our Father who art in heaven. Their was an order to creation.

And I pray the Lord's prayer every day.

But that doesn't mean I think God is male.

So Answer simply God who was manifest in the flesh did he come as a male or a female ?

Jesus Christ was a man. But God in Godself transcends the sexual binary of human reproductive biology.

 

[Billy UK]

.

 

[Paidiske]

So why are you arguing in favor for a divine femine ?

I am arguing that we cannot understand God in terms of human biology.

 

[Radagast]

I am arguing that we cannot understand God in terms of human biology.

And if people attempt to do so, then their view of who God is will be vastly inadequate. It would be like bacteria saying "yes, we think that human beings are a kind of bacteria, just a little bigger than normal." Actually, it would be infinitely worse than that.

But it didn't help that the O.P. seemed to be criticising the kind of language about God that we do find in the Bible. That language was given to us for a reason.

 

[Paidiske]

But it didn't help that the O.P. seemed to be criticising the kind of language about God that we do find in the Bible.

I think it's helpful to be aware that there are situations where being open to using a breadth of language for God is helpful. (For example, for a group of sex abuse victims, God as "father" can be a deeply problematic image). That doesn't mean I would choose to abandon Biblical language; if anything I'd like to draw more broadly on Biblical language and draw on the more neglected images and metaphors (including the places in Scripture where God is maternal!)

 

[Billy UK]

.