Ask A Catholic II

[Arakhor]

Commonly accepted, yes, but not so universally accepted that it doesn't need to be pointed out many times it's done that way.

 

[Jehoshua]

Indeed, unfortunately in this day and age people seem oddly averse to educating themselves on matters of linguistic convention. Either way calling God "she" is contrary to scripture not to mention the teaching of the Church as it leads to a false understanding of the relationship of God within himself and with his creation irrespective of the fact that God is not male in the biological sense. (excepting Christ, God the Son, second person of the singular triune God was made incarnate as a male)

 

[Arakhor]

Why is it relevant whether we think of God as male or not? I was always taught that he is Father-Mother God, representing all his children on Earth.

 

[Jehoshua]

The Maleness of God describes the nature of the interelation of the trinity within itself (father, son and holy spirit) and to creation. Thus the description of God as female detracts from the understanding of the nature of God and expressed an incorrect theology and is thus heterodox.

Furthermore to call God female would be equivalent to altering scripture which unanimously describes Gos as male. Altering scripture is roundly condemned in the Catholic Church.

 

[Arakhor]

If Scripture unambiguously defines God as male, how can you then claim that God has no gender?

 

[Jehoshua]

I said that God is not biologically a male which is obvious. God is God not a biological creation.

However I have said repeatedly now that God in his relationship within himself (the trinity) and to his creation is male in nature and in character. Thus the reference of God's maleness in scripture in indication of this nature.

However the point was you can't just go altering scripture howsoever you please, and going around calling God "she" is ipso facto doing just that.

 

[Arakhor]

You don't think that it's actually to do with the highly patriarchal nature of the time in which the New Testament was written and later collated and that God's gender is actually irrelevant to his position as our divine parent?

 

[Jehoshua]

I Say... NO

 

[El_Machinae]

This is an interesting tangent. Does this mean that God's gender is more like a man's than a woman's? And does this make men 'more like God' than women?

 

[Jehoshua]

As I said, God is not "male" in the biological sense. In this sense God is genderless.

God is called male, due to the nature of his inter-relationshp within himself (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and towards his creation. Thus in regards to calling God "She" it obscures the theological truth regarding this relationship and God's nature in this regard: Thus the heterodoxy.

-

As to biological man being more like God, Humanity is made in the image of God in that our souls reflect the divine nature, we can reason and think. Likewise the totality of humanity is body, soul and spirit(mind) which reflects the divine trinity of the father (who I shall equate with the spirit), son (the body as Christ was made incarnate) and Holy Spirit (the soul).

Naturally this is an imperfect reflection and hardly is an accurate reflection of the trinity, but this triune nature of the humanity, although different entirely from the consubstantial relationship of the three persons of the trinity, it is an echo of that triune nature on the human scale.

And in regards to women that reflection of the divinity is equal to the human male. Either way though you can hardly compare humans to God. God is God and is incomprehensible beyond that which is revealed in revelation to us.

-

(Interested in the topic ask an apologist on catholic answers or some other reputable site. Im hardly a theologian or an authoritative voice on what the Church teaches)

 

[Arakhor]

Both man and woman were created in the likeness of God. If God is exclusively male in temperament and behaviour, women are then not like God.

 

[Jehoshua]

I did not mention temperament and behaviour. I mentioned relationship with creation and the relationship between the persons of the trinity. Its because of these relationships (God being the dutiful father to creation)(Father, Son and Holy Spirit) that God is called "He", not because of any temperament or behavioural pattern.

To me that statement sounds like you are anthropomorphising God. God is God, not some man on a cloud Arakhor.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You have to do a lot of soul searching and prayer to understand it, or else you wind up asking dumb questions like "how can you profess to know what God wants?"

Why is that a dumb question in light of the underlined word? And what about people who also prayed and did a lot of soul searching and ended up with different answers then you did with regard to what God wants?

 

[El_Machinae]

So, one of the handicaps here is that there's a biological 'male' and a gender 'male'. Gender is a societal construct, and biological sex is a biological definition. So, I understand that God is not a biological male. To use the term 'he' (and to insist upon it) is certainly a gender issue.

That said, I don't really understand why people have to think of God as a He, but at the same time insist the He is not more similar to men than women. I don't think it can easily be explained. It's awfully non-intuitive

Thanks for the answer. I thought I'd point out the gender/sex definitional issue, because people who use those definitions sometimes get confused by people who intermix them

 

[Arakhor]

If anything, Jehoshua, by insisting that God is exclusively male, you are the one enforcing mortal characteristics upon him. Why does it matter in the slightest whether we consider him to be male, female, both or neither?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

homosexual acts are gravely immoral because they are contradictory to the natural law. They do not spring from a mutual complimentarity because they deny the procreative purpose of the sexual act.

As I was shown not too long ago, the act of eating fancy food for the taste of it, instead of being fed is just as gravely immoral. So why the focus on homosexuality? Where are the outcries against eating fancy food? My take is; because Christians themselves like to eat fancy food, so they'll totally ignore that gravely immoral act.

Also going by your logic, condom use is as grave a sin as homosexual acts. Someone who is, for whatever reason, infertile and can't produce children also will end up n hell if they have sex.

And how can something be against natural law when we see the instances of same-sex in nature? Is nature against natural law?

But to answer this point (I will not go onto old points, as it has been discussed [there are differing levels of immorality incidentally {venial, mortal}) in regards to this.

Would you answer the question what makes buttsex to be the vastly more immoral one?

Condom use is a grave sin because it bars the transmission of life. The infertile couple isn;t because they are still open to the chance of conception. SSB in animals is likewise contrary to the pirpose of the sexual act and no way inviolates the precepts of the natural law, as the world is fallen, naturally that fallen state afflicts everything. (I am talking about humans btw, I hardly see the relevance of animal behaviours to human morality)

If what in nature happens doesn't dictate natural law, what does?

If the answer is the Bible we've got a bit of circular reasoning going on.

 

[Jehoshua]

Why is that a dumb question in light of the underlined word? And what about people who also prayed and did a lot of soul searching and ended up with different answers then you did with regard to what God wants?

That last point is getting along the lines of the fundamental problem of protestantism which is the rejection of authority. You see thousands upon thousands of sects springing up because without authority all they have to base their precepts on is their own opinions. (Which is outrageous in my opinion, as there being only one God, there can be only one truth. God is the same, yesterday, today and forever; truth doesn't change based on popular opinions of the age)

This is why the proper understanding of authority is neccesary. Thus in the Catholic Church there is the three legs of the stool so to speak. Sacred Tradition (teachings of the apostles passed down to us), Sacred Scripture which emerged from sacred tradition as a tangible record of the apostolic era and of christs words and Sacred Magisterium, the legitimate teaching authority of the Church Christ founded.

Without due consideration of these things and reference to this solid foundation, this rock so to speak. One is simply left to drift on the waves of relativism into whatsoever fancy happens to be predominant in a particular place and age without any reference to objective truth.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Heh, I do disagree about the solidity of this foundation when I look at how it has changed historically, the rock comparison I find apt though, since that too is subject to natural erosion.

But I fear I'm feeling a bit lost in Christian flavours catholic/protestant, so I'll go back to lurking.

(if you read this before the edit on previous post, feel free to ignore previous post)

 

[Jehoshua]

If anything, Jehoshua, by insisting that God is exclusively male, you are the one enforcing mortal characteristics upon him. Why does it matter in the slightest whether we consider him to be male, female, both or neither?

Hardly. I am simply saying that God is described as he because of the two relationships i mentioned. The Father begets the son, he does not nurture him within himself like a mother, and they exist in a relationship of perfect love with eachover. This relationship although hardly biological, of the Father begetting the Son compared to nurturing within, is why God is described as 'he'.

It is the same with creation. Got created existence ex nihilo, from nothing. He did not nurture it within himself like a mother, it did not emerge "from" God. God likewise rules over creation like a father compared to the manner of a mother to her children. Thus again why God is described as a 'he'. Because his relationship to creation is not 'feminine" in nature.

Thus 'he' is used only because of this understanding, this theological truth of the Fathers relationship to the Son. And Gods relationship to creation as an act not of nurturing creation within, but of creation ex nihilo.

-

(Perhaps this will help you understand the point as well El Machinae)

 

[Jehoshua]

would you answer the question what makes buttsex to be the vastly more immoral one?

If what in nature happens doesn't dictate natural law, what does?

If the answer is the Bible we've got a bit of circular reasoning going on.

I answered the previous part so I will answer this.

Anal intercourse is as immoral as contraceptives as it likewise denies the procreative purpose of the sexual act. thus immoral.

I have explained the natural law as the temporal manifestation of the eternal law. It is called natural because it is "natural" to the person, ingrained within the soul. Not because its dictated too by creation or what you call nature.