Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If we are made in the image of God, male and female, then yes. God is spirit but He has masculine and feminine aspects.No, I know. Hence the question mark. So I'm asking what you think: does being made in the image of God connote maleness or femaleness?
The passage you are referring to has more that one possible interpretation.To what extent was man or woman made in the image of God? This is an ongoing debate. If man was made in the image of God without sharing all of Gods characteristics--and he apparently did not share all those characteristics-- is it possible that woman was made in the image of God to a different extent than man? That is, man alone sharing God's gender? Even the angels of God are patterned after God's image to a certain extent.But Scripture tells us that mankind, male and female, were created in the image of God.
Except we *do* have this: "God is love" (1st John 4). God is "good" and said (in Genesis) that humanity is as well.The image of God is not defined by God
I am not sure exactly what you mean.Thanks for sharing your knowledge. It wasn't my intent to say it did ascribe gender to God/Holy Spirit. God I don't see as a sexual being, Jesus as born of a woman and being a man would be by His virgin birth but not by His eternal existence. So any reference to God as male or female is more cultural and linguistic than a statement of gender for me.
The passage you are referring to has more that one possible interpretation.To what extent was man or woman made in the image of God? This is an ongoing debate. If man was made in the image of God without sharing all of Gods characteristics--which he was not-- is it possible that woman was made in the image of God to a different extent than man? That is, man alone sharing God's gender? Even the angels of God are patterned after God's image to a certain extent.
Christ was the "express" image of God and he was male.
Look up "Imago Dei."
That is just a metaphor. There are many *other* metaphors as well. God is also depicted as a "birthing God" (for just one more example--there are many others):The authoritative Word of God describes God Almighty as "Father," as "Husband."
That is just a metaphor.
There are many *other* metaphors as well. God is also depicted as a "birthing God" (for just one more example--there are many others):
Deut. 32:18 “You forget the rock who begot you, unmindful of the God who gave birth to you”
• Job 38:8 “Who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb?”
• Isaiah 42:14 “I groan like a woman in labor; I will gasp and pant”
• Isaiah 46: 3-4: “You who have been carried since birth, whom I have carried since time you were born” – incubating in God’s womb
• John 1:12: Those who believe in God are born of God
• John 4:7: Everyone who loves is born of God
• John 16:21: God is bringing forth a new humanity like the pangs of a woman in labor; Her hour has come
• Romans 8:22 From the beginning to now the entire creation has been groaning in one great act of giving birth (creation)
I believe the first step in understanding the image of God is found in these two verses:The image of God is not defined by God.
"Father," "Husband."
Even if these nouns are used solely as metaphors, they are descriptive nouns, not actions. Your examples are spiritual/metaphorical actions, not descriptive nouns. Not the same.
A noun is no more an action than an action is a noun. A metaphor is not an exact equivalence. A Father or husband is a person. An action is not a person.
But was the term "Father" used because God is male or for the benefit of human beings in what was a very patriarchal society where women counted for very little?
Some have described God as a verb more than a noun."Father," "Husband."
Even if these nouns are used solely as metaphors, they are descriptive nouns, not actions. Your examples are spiritual/metaphorical actions, not descriptive nouns. Not the same.
A noun is no more an action than an action is a noun. A metaphor is not an exact equivalence. A Father or husband is a person. An action is not a person.
Lady Julian of Norwich (c. 1342-c.1416) is one of my favorite mystics. Julian experienced her showings, as she called them, all on one night, probably May 8, 1373. It was such a profound experience that she asked the bishop to enclose her in a small anchor-hold built onto St. Julian’s Church in Norwich, England. (We don’t know Julian’s real name; we call her by the name of this church.) From a window that looked into the sanctuary she would attend mass; from another window she would counsel people who came to visit her. Julian lived in the anchor-hold for perhaps twenty years and spent this time trying to communicate what she experienced in one night.
For me, Chapter 54 of Julian’s Showings is the best description I have read of the union of the soul within the Trinity. The mystics always go to the Trinitarian level because here God is a verb more than a noun, God is a flow more than a substance, God is an experience more than an old man sitting on a throne. And we are inside that flow of love. Julian writes:
Greatly ought we to rejoice that God dwells in our soul; and more greatly ought we to rejoice that our soul dwells in God. Our soul is created to be God’s dwelling place, and the dwelling of our soul is God. . . . [This is what some call inter-being.] It is a great understanding to see and know inwardly that God, who is our creator, dwells in our soul, and it is a far greater understanding to see and know inwardly that our soul, which is created, dwells in God in substance, of which substance, through God, we are what we are. [We share in the same substantial, ontological, and metaphysical unity.] And I saw no difference between God and our substance, but, as it were, all God; and still my understanding accepted that our substance is in God. [1]
Intimacy implies twoness, but twoness overcome and enjoyed. Julian preserves differentiation, the dance of partners. She is not a pantheist; she is not saying everything is God. She is saying everything is in God and God is in everything— which is panentheism.~https://cac.org/one-god-one-love-2016-12-13/
The image of God is not defined by God, by the Bible so I think anything that we say about what the image of God is our opinion.
Are you saying that God cannot and has not done a good job at communicating who He is? Are you further saying that Jesus is not the image of the Father?
Too bad. Both the book and the movie were excellent.Heterodoxy. After hearing about this book, I am extremely unimpressed. I won't be reading it. I don't care to watch the movie.
It doesn't sound even remotely appealing. You can keep it.Too bad. Both the book and the movie were excellent.
Your call of course. As I said you are missing a good book and a good movie.It doesn't sound even remotely appealing. You can keep it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?