Why is God always perceived as a man?

[RameNoodle]

Its simply because of the patriarchs, as was said earlier. God has both masculine and feminine qualities, but tradition causes us to refer to Him as masculine.

 

[odintheking]

I don't see God as a human. I don't even see God as a life form (more of an all-encompassing spirit), so it's impossible to choose a gender. However, most of the time, when describing God, I (and most people) usually use words like "him", "he" and such just out of habit, regardless of whether we think he is a person or not.

 

[ironduck]

In a child's birth process we have a man and a woman.
The man is the "source" and the woman is the "environment" - and together they create something totally new - a child.

What do you mean by source? You do realize that the child is created through genetic recombination of two haploid cells, right? So what makes the father the source anymore than the mother?

To further confuse things, the sperm brings a number of goodies to begin the process, in other words it brings a small part of the environment.

 

[civ2]

ironduck
A father is a source in the way that he doesn't "grow" the baby after he/she is concieved.
This is the role of a mother who is therefore "an environment" which acts like an incubator.
I'm not speaking of the genetical result - I'm speaking about the baby's body itself.
And in that process mother's role is much bigger but she couldn't "start" it by her own without a father.
Actually this "father-mother-child" allegory is used also when speaking of the way of a human's thinking.
I mean the "triad" of ChaBaD (Chochmah-Binah-Daat):
Chochma ("wisdom") is the very first splash of intellect - the very question "what?".
(Chochma <=> Koach "ma?" = Power of "what?".)
Then goes Bina ("understanding") - the way a human reacts and realizes a thought - the basic thinking itself.
And finaly Daat ("knowledge") - when a person "knows" something - this idea becomes so integrated into his mind that they become one.
Allegorically Chochma is "father" - Bina is "mother" - and Daat is "child" - because the process of thinking and grasping an idea proceeds as follows:
A person makes his/her first "thought" about something - then he/she thinks and delves into that idea - and finally he/she understands it so well it becomes as apparent as the daylight.
So look:
The first thought is "small" but without it there would be no further thinking.
The process of thinking then develops a "mature" thought.
And finally the ultimate idea is formed and grasped up to its limits.
Now the real father also begins the process of childbirth by a "small" deed.
Then the mother grows the baby for a long time and with lots of effort.
And finally the baby is born as a new entity - and a totally new personality too.
Now back to our cosmic model:
The father would be not "exactly" God Himself but rather His "thought" about our world.
Then He used some "outside powers" (which are also a part of Him but somewhat "instruments") to create the world as we know it.
And the final peak of the creation was the human - the one that is to serve God in this material world - and who will upgrade it so much that it shall become "the Garden of God".
But all of this wouldn't happen if not for that very first "thought".

 

[Perfection]

Well, if God's the father than who's the mother?

 

[civ2]

Perf
Hard to explain that fast.
Maybe my example is somewhat lacking.
I mean the "mother" is also God but not His very "Essense" (God Himself) but some "forces" that were used to create the world.
Those forces (called Sfirot) are the instruments used by God to create everything - but they are somewhat "external" to Him (much less than our physical world).
The problem in explaination is that there's nothing REALLY external for God - He's everywhere and more.
And don't confuse those forces with nature - nature is the RESULT.
(Maybe I shouldn't single out humans as "children" - that confused me a bit so I'd better name the entire world a "child" since it's the last element of the "chain of Creation" - from the highest spiritual worlds and down to us.)

A joke:
Down to US.
Just kidding!!!

 

[Shaihulud]

God must have an infinite amount of testosterone in his system. So look out.

The only male person with an infinite testosterone in his system is Chuck Norris and therefore God can't be male .

 

[shadow2k]

Apparently you've never seen Dogma. Great flick. Not only is God a woman, but she's Canadian!

Anyway, have you actually read the bible? I mean, it's written by man, and doesn't cast a particularly bright light on women.

 

[Shaihulud]

Apparently you've never seen Dogma. Great flick. Not only is God a woman, but she's Canadian!

Ahhh sadly no. Though i have heard good things about it, Alanis Morisette as God has to be a 'must see'. Im tentatively a Christian and have read the Bible several times over. Sadly, i doubt the veracity of the Bible, that is why i say tentative. God might not even resemble the ideal of 'God' inside the Bible.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Anyway, have you actually read the bible? I mean, it's written by man, and doesn't cast a particularly bright light on women.

Parts of it describe women in quite a bright light (such as the books of Ruth and Esther, and the Gospels to a large degree); other parts are less flattering. Goes to show that the Bible is not a single unified story but is very complex and even contradictory.

 

[RameNoodle]

Parts of it describe women in quite a bright light (such as the books of Ruth and Esther, and the Gospels to a large degree); other parts are less flattering. Goes to show that the Bible is not a single unified story but is very complex and even contradictory.

Interesting point. Women are actually used in the Gospels as the first to see the risen Jesus. There's a reason for this, I learned it this year in religion class, but I can't seem to recall it. However, it is interesting that the Evangelists chose a woman instead of a man in the stories, considering the social implications of the time.

 

[ironduck]

civ2, I understand (I think) the concept of your view, but I think it's a mistake to link it directly to the actual physical world as you have done. In the past the two were interchangable as this way of thinking was indeed based on people's understanding of the physical world (how a father and mother operated biologically). Back then it was actually believed that the father's seed created the child and the woman simply nurtured it. But with today's knowledge it's completely bunk. You can still use the abstract concept, but keeping the specific terms makes it misleading, as you did in this quote:

In a child's birth process we have a man and a woman.
The man is the "source" and the woman is the "environment" - and together they create something totally new - a child.

Anyway, if there's nothing external to god then god is also the nuturer (mother figure), so it makes no sense to see him as a father only. This, of course, is why many religions have several gods - and it's my opinion that your explanation is simply a remnant from that tradition.

 

[Smidlee]

For man, Male is the head of authority, the stronger vessal while woman is the weaker vessal. (Thus the church is refered to a woman , bribe of Christ.) Note; a weaker vessal doesn't mean it's inferior or have less rights. Ex. My car is a weaker vessal while a 18-wheeler is the stronger vessal but both have top obey the same laws on the road. The stronger vessal is design to carry heavy loads while a weaker vessal is design to fill more personal needs.

 

[ironduck]

For man, Male is the head of authority

This was indeed true in the patriarchal society at the time the bible was written, but is it true now?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Interesting point. Women are actually used in the Gospels as the first to see the risen Jesus. There's a reason for this, I learned it this year in religion class, but I can't seem to recall it. However, it is interesting that the Evangelists chose a woman instead of a man in the stories, considering the social implications of the time.

Indeed, in my "Jesus in America" class that I took at Notre Dame last semester (with a Mormon professor, interestingly) we read an article called "Jesus was a Feminist" that discussed this. Jesus himself may have been male, but women were a huge part of his ministry. Most of his miracles came at the request of women, and of course as the Resurrection was seen by the Gospel writers as the cornerstone of his entire life, I think it is no small thing that he appeared to women first.

 

[ironduck]

Yet all his disciples were men, and all those who wrote about him were men. And the tradition that was carried on was one of men (male ministers deciding and interpreting everything).