God: he, she or it?

[AlexBC]

Serious question here so please don't take this as an attempt to get banned.

Whilst having a conversation today about God, I referred to God as "IT" which really offended the person I was speaking with.

That got me thinking. Is it important that God be referred to as "he" or do some say "it"?

If God is inherently asexual then that what does that say for certain issues-who-must-not-be-named? If some say "she" then Jesus had two mot...oops. Nearly said it.

Is the use of the personal pronoun "he" just a shorthand or do most assign masculine characteristics to God?

 

[handy]

God created us in His image and He created us male and female. So, both male and female are part of His image. However, God isn't a Great Big Human In The Sky.... He is a completely different being.

So, while we are able to see aspects of God in both the male and female of the one species He says He created in His image... it doen't make God either a man or a woman. Men and women are human... God isn't human and there is no other God by which to compare Him to. He is completely unique.

Since He is unique and we have nothing to compare Him with... then we need to refer to Him as He refers to Himself... which is always, without exception, in the masuline. The Father is masculine, the Son is masculine and the Holy Spirit is masculine. Trying to impose the feminine or the neutral upon God is incorrect, because this isn't something unknown about God. It's not as if Jesus wasn't aware of, or couldn't explain feminity about God... He simply doesn't attribute feminity to either the Father or the Spirit.

I don't think that God is asexual as much as He is a full completion of everything each sex is. But, God doesn't procreate sexually... so we get confused because for humans, procreation is the basic function of sexuality. However, instead of thinking of sexuality, it might be less confusing to think instead of male and female attributes... which God is the completion of both. However, as He reveals Himself in His relationships here on earth, it is by the male attributes that He does so.

And we need to respect that.

If we don't, then we effectively diminish God from being a real person with His own right to present Himself for Who He is to something we just make up as we go along.

 

[AlexBC]

But why would he identify as male at all? Why not represent both sexes evenly?

 

[handy]

Hermaphrodidic is a term that would apply to animals that reproduce.

The term wouldn't apply to God at all... He doesn't reproduce sexually...

There is nothing "arbitary" as to how He reveals Himself to us... If He reveals Himself to us as male, which He has, then that is what is true about Him.

But, you really need to stop trying to impose human characteristics on the Divine Being. Human beings are sexual creatures. God isn't. Humans are separated into either "male" or "female"... God is the completion of both, but has always revealed Himself to us as male. Not a human man, with male reproductive organs and certainly not as hermaphrodidic which is essentially a birth defect and God wasn't birthed in the first place.

You're speaking of a completely different kind of being... it seems, forgive me, almost silly, to be ascribing human biological characteristics to Him.

 

[farouk]

The New Testament reveals Him as the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[childeye]

God is Spirit as in the Eternal Spirit of Love and the moral absolute. The male\female terms are distiiguishable as one made from the substance of the other.

 

[handy]

Ahh, I see you've edited your post while I replied to it.


Edited question now reads:

But why would he identify as male at all? Why not represent both sexes evenly?

The short answer would be as I said above, "There is nothing "arbitary" as to how He reveals Himself to us... If He reveals Himself to us as male, which He has, then that is what is true about Him."

Why not represent both sexes evenly? I believe that because here on earth, the human male is the dominate species... He dominates not only the rest of the species on earth, he also dominates the female human as well. The male human holds power and dominion.

I believe that it is this aspect of "maleness" that God reveals to reveal that it is He who holds ultimate dominion and power.

Again, we are not speaking of a human being, but we are speaking of a Being who wants humans to be able to come to an understanding of Him and be in a relationship with Him. Except for modern feminist ideals, humans are going to relate to the male as being the dominate one, the powerful one, the one who is in charge.... This reveals what is true about God and is how He chose to reveal Himself to us.

It's a mistake of modern Christian liberalism to try to re-invent God as feminine... He did not choose to reveal Himself that way. When we, as humans, try to re-invent God... we are guilty of
idoltry.

 

[reba]

It's a mistake of modern Christian liberalism to try to re-invent God as feminine... He did not choose to reveal Himself that way. When we, as humans, try to re-invent God... we are guilty of
idoltry.


Agreed .... Some folks just are never happy

 

[duari91]

This is a topic I have studied for quite some time in college.

What is the definition of image? We have a human definition of that, but what about God's definition? God thinks about everything on an entirely different level.

In the case of God, image can be three different things. God created us with emotions/feelings, right? Would that not be considered an emotional image? God makes it clear he shows compassion, anger, and kindness. He was the first being to have those emotions, so of course he created us in his emotional image.

Secondly, he created us in physical image. Whether your a man/woman, we all look similar don't we? Do we not all have two arms, two legs...etc? Would that not be considered an image? When you look at a group of people, you can say that they are human. Human classifies our species because of our image. The only real difference between a Man/Woman is the sexual organs(In short, we all know men/women act differently too). So, it can be said that God could possibly look like a human. Two arms, two legs...but without sexual orientation.

What about a spiritual image? We all have a spirit, and so does God. It is quite apparent that our spirit form lives forever, unless of course God decides we don't deserve to reside in our spiritual bodies. What is a spirit? What does it look like? Does it have depth? Some of these things we will never be able to answer.

In summary, we can see that we exist in God's image on three different levels. Emotional, Physical, and Spiritual. Each exists on a different depth, each is from God. Keep in mind, this is my understanding of God's "image."

 

[elijah23]

Serious question here so please don't take this as an attempt to get banned.

Whilst having a conversation today about God, I referred to God as "IT" which really offended the person I was speaking with.

That got me thinking. Is it important that God be referred to as "he" or do some say "it"?

If God is inherently asexual then that what does that say for certain issues-who-must-not-be-named? If some say "she" then Jesus had two mot...oops. Nearly said it.

Is the use of the personal pronoun "he" just a shorthand or do most assign masculine characteristics to God?

God is not sexual. Jesus referred to him as "Father," so I call him "Father."

 

[handy]

This is a topic I have studied for quite some time in college.

What is the definition of image? We have a human definition of that, but what about God's definition? God thinks about everything on an entirely different level.

In the case of God, image can be three different things. God created us with emotions/feelings, right? Would that not be considered an emotional image? God makes it clear he shows compassion, anger, and kindness. He was the first being to have those emotions, so of course he created us in his emotional image.

Secondly, he created us in physical image. Whether your a man/woman, we all look similar don't we? Do we not all have two arms, two legs...etc? Would that not be considered an image? When you look at a group of people, you can say that they are human. Human classifies our species because of our image. The only real difference between a Man/Woman is the sexual organs(In short, we all know men/women act differently too). So, it can be said that God could possibly look like a human. Two arms, two legs...but without sexual orientation.

What about a spiritual image? We all have a spirit, and so does God. It is quite apparent that our spirit form lives forever, unless of course God decides we don't deserve to reside in our spiritual bodies. What is a spirit? What does it look like? Does it have depth? Some of these things we will never be able to answer.

In summary, we can see that we exist in God's image on three different levels. Emotional, Physical, and Spiritual. Each exists on a different depth, each is from God. Keep in mind, this is my understanding of God's "image."

I agree with a lot of this. I do believe that there is a corporal element to God... the Bible speaks specifically of God's face, His hands, His feet, how He sits, how He walks... Since we are made in His image and we are made physical, then I'm not sure why so many believe so strongly that God is pure spirit with no physical attributes.

Also, being in His image would translate into emotional, mental and spiritual attributes as well.... and, although we are certainly created to sexually reproduce and God does not... there are emotional, mental and spiritual aspects to sexuality in the sense of the masculine and the feminine. The Bible always, without exception presents God in the masculine.

 

[Free]

Serious question here so please don't take this as an attempt to get banned.

Whilst having a conversation today about God, I referred to God as "IT" which really offended the person I was speaking with.

That got me thinking. Is it important that God be referred to as "he" or do some say "it"?

If God is inherently asexual then that what does that say for certain issues-who-must-not-be-named? If some say "she" then Jesus had two mot...oops. Nearly said it.

Is the use of the personal pronoun "he" just a shorthand or do most assign masculine characteristics to God?

God chose to reveal himself in a masculine way, so that is how we should refer to him. Certainly not "it" as that implies some non-personal force.

 

[BobE]

Serious question here so please don't take this as an attempt to get banned.

Whilst having a conversation today about God, I referred to God as "IT" which really offended the person I was speaking with.

That got me thinking. Is it important that God be referred to as "he" or do some say "it"?

If God is inherently asexual then that what does that say for certain issues-who-must-not-be-named? If some say "she" then Jesus had two mot...oops. Nearly said it.

Is the use of the personal pronoun "he" just a shorthand or do most assign masculine characteristics to God?

I found what I think is an excellent articile on this issue at the following link:

http://www.ifapray.org/archive/NL_PDF/PDFNL08/May08_Page3_FINAL_color.pdf

I hope you enjoy it ^_^. In it, you will notice that God specifically compares himself to a mother [edited for clarity]:

"As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you." —Isaiah 66:13

When I read God identified as Father, I perceive it as a metaphor with a message about "his" character.

There's an excellent article about the use of metaphor related to God in biblical language here:

http://www.theporpoisedivinglife.com/porpoise-diving-life.asp?pageID=386

At the same time, this is not the only metaphor "he" uses. Sometimes he is a mother, sometimes a rock, sometimes a fountain of water, sometimes bread. In one instance Jesus said he felt like a hen wanting to gather her chicks to herself when he looked at wayward Jerusalem.

Pronouns fail us, because they are embedded in patriarchal (male-centred) languages like English. Bible translation and commentary may also fail us in that they are strongly influenced by Roman culture (since the Vulgate), which was extremely patriarchal. Our own mental paradigms fail us in that persons, in our experience, are either male or female. God is, however, not like us in this sense. In other words, there is very little in our earthly experience to use as a reference point.

Apart from gender specific metaphors, the Bible tells us that God is spirit, and that God is love. These concepts are gender-transcendent. At the same time, we're told that both human genders reflect God's image.

 

[handy]

I hope you enjoy it ^_^. In it, you will notice that God specifically refers to himself as a mother:

"As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you." —Isaiah 66:13

I disagree... pretty strongly as a matter of fact.

God didn't "specifically refer to Himself as a mother here... As you correctly go on to say, He used a metaphor... "as a ...."

"As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you".... The whole point about a metaphor is that it isn't specific.. it's meant to convey something through imagery.


When God does specifically refer to Himself, or is specifically referred to, it is always in the masculine. It really isn't up to us to change that... especially if the reason why we are changing it is because we are assuming biases in language or by the writers.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

To me there's nothing cultural or linguistic about it. God gives life to all things. That makes him a Father. He doesn't birth life that was given him. He IS the source of life that gets implanted and birthed in all creation. That makes him a Father. Not simply taking on the role of a Father. He IS a father.

"13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything" (1 Timothy 6:13 NIV1984)

(If I remember correctly, the Revised Standard Version puts 'father' for God in the passage.)


"How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!" (Hebrews 12:9 NIV1984)

 

[handy]

I agree, Jethro... There is nothing metaphoric about God the Father... whereas God was clearly using a metaphor when He said, "as a mother..."

 

[AlexBC]

To me there's nothing cultural or linguistic about it. God gives life to all things. That makes him a Father. He doesn't birth life that was given him. He IS the source of life that gets implanted and birthed in all creation. That makes him a Father. Not simply taking on the role of a Father. He IS a father.

"13 In the sight of God, who gives life to everything" (1 Timothy 6:13 NIV1984)

(If I remember correctly, the Revised Standard Version puts 'father' for God in the passage.)


"How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live!" (Hebrews 12:9 NIV1984)

Biologically speaking, it would teeeechnically make more sense to refer to him as Mother.

So, you assign a very definite male gender role to him. Then what is the female side of that equation? If it's not cultural or linguistic then he must be a sexual being able to procreate with others of his kind. At least that's what i'm getting here.

And the talk of reproduction gets me to another topic. How was Jesus conceived? Surely, if you ground it more in biology, then God is imparting some sort of genetic code to the egg. I'm assuming Jesus shared genetic material with Mary.

 

[reba]

I have zero problem accepting God as male... I also embrace the whole patriarchal idea of scripture.

As it would be insulting to call me male to call God female sounds insulting. We dont call a cat a dog or a dog a cat.
He has said He is the Father

Jesus said 'Our Father'

This idea is insulting.... We are to worship God not fit Him into the box we wish to fill....

 

[Atothetheist]

In all honesty, Alex, this question is very obvious. It is an It.

Since God has no gender (assumed) we can not, by definition call it a Him. Jesus did have a Gender, which is why we call should call him a him.

God is an entity, the whole He/She thing is codependant.. One can not have a He, without a She.

Since God( The being in the Old Testament) is sexless, we should not use masculine or feminist pronouns.

God may call itself a He, but it should know that only applys to gender, and not personality. You can have a very feminist guy, but he would still be a he, and a tomboyish girl would still be a she.

Those titles are designated by sex, not my personality.

 

[AlexBC]

I have zero problem accepting God as male... I also embrace the whole patriarchal idea of scripture.

I think the problem I have is, unless you take the label "male' in a purely linguistic sense then it opens up other doors. Male is generally by the act of procreation. It might sound very silly, but is there a Mrs God