I don't think anywhere in the Bible does it say that God is necessarily male. Let's see there is "Elohim" of Genesis 1, which is just translated as God or "the strong one who swears or binds with an oath." In this translation God is referred to in the plural sense. If we are taking the Bible literally then referring back to Elohim are Christians polytheists, to believe in Elohim of Genesis? Then there is of course the great mistake "Jehovah," which is a corruption of YHWH. Many use that name to, does that make them false? Then there's Adonai, which means Lord. Notice none of these so far state that God is male. Sure many people refer to God as Him, but that is using the generic he that was standard language usage in English spoken at the time, and also still pervades every day use, but that doesn't necessarily state that God is male. God says, "I am who I am." Wouldn't that mean that God is above all description, including gender. Plus how do you reconcile how God made them in his image, both male and female of Genesis. God is once again beyond description. Therefore God is beyond all metaphors. By limiting God to one gender or one primary metaphor say "God the father" for instance, then are we limiting God's power and God's ability to relate to all people. If we state that God is only male, then all of those who fear men, who have been abused by men, who's male influence in their life has been a corrupting and diabolic influence has been catastrophic are initially excluded from having a desire to know God simply because of gender. Therefore, if someone wants to speak of God using female language, then isn't that as acceptable as referring to God as male since God is beyond all description including gender? I would think so, and more power to them since I am sure they have deal with comments such as this all the time.
2 comments:
I don't think anywhere in the Bible does it say that God is necessarily male. Let's see there is "Elohim" of Genesis 1, which is just translated as God or "the strong one who swears or binds with an oath." In this translation God is referred to in the plural sense. If we are taking the Bible literally then referring back to Elohim are Christians polytheists, to believe in Elohim of Genesis? Then there is of course the great mistake "Jehovah," which is a corruption of YHWH. Many use that name to, does that make them false? Then there's Adonai, which means Lord. Notice none of these so far state that God is male. Sure many people refer to God as Him, but that is using the generic he that was standard language usage in English spoken at the time, and also still pervades every day use, but that doesn't necessarily state that God is male. God says, "I am who I am." Wouldn't that mean that God is above all description, including gender. Plus how do you reconcile how God made them in his image, both male and female of Genesis. God is once again beyond description. Therefore God is beyond all metaphors. By limiting God to one gender or one primary metaphor say "God the father" for instance, then are we limiting God's power and God's ability to relate to all people. If we state that God is only male, then all of those who fear men, who have been abused by men, who's male influence in their life has been a corrupting and diabolic influence has been catastrophic are initially excluded from having a desire to know God simply because of gender. Therefore, if someone wants to speak of God using female language, then isn't that as acceptable as referring to God as male since God is beyond all description including gender? I would think so, and more power to them since I am sure they have deal with comments such as this all the time.
Post a Comment