A Genderless God

Bridget Eagles

The Christian, feminist philosopher Mary Daly has argued before about the inherent oppression tied into our view of God as a man. Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” This image of people being created in the image of God leads to disparities among women in Christianity. God is seen as foreign to the creation of women yet similar and familiar to the creation of man. This dichotomy presents issues for women of religion, especially women in the hierarchy of the church. Having God be ascribed one gender over another inherently grants the gender similar to God's an aspect of holiness and righteousness. The argument is laid out below:

1. If God is made in the image of man, then God is not female.
2. If God is not female, then God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society.
3. If God is made in the image of man, then God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society.

As a point of clarification, this argument is not seeking to feminize God but rather to view God as a genderless being. This means that people of any gender identity or expression can have the ability to see themselves in God, truly allowing everyone to be made in the image of God. The inherent view of God as male contributes to patriarchal roles because it causes women in the church to be ‘othered,' or cast out for their differences and deviation from the norm. Since women are viewed as different from their Creator and men are viewed to be similar, a disparity arises in the importance granted to genders within the church. Many people already have a perspective of God being a separate entity from us, working for the greater good through omnipotence while being physically separated from Earth. If God is already viewed as a physically separate entity, working spiritually within all, then why would they need a gender? God should be viewed as an omnipotent entity in our universe and the ascribing of gender roles to God creates a hierarchy within the church that undermines the presence of women. Although the gendered image of God has become the norm for Christianity, viewing God through a genderless perspective aligns with the view of God as a separate entity and also allows for every person to truly be created in the image of God.

Noble Dust

↪Bridget Eagles

I'm not sure to what extent anyone interested in a discussion like this around these parts will disagree with you. I wonder if the discussion would be more lively on a religion forum.

That being said, Jewish mysticism has a tradition of viewing God as male and female. Two of the 10 sefirots, Binah and Malkut are female, and they correspond to the Shekhinah Glory, or "divine presence".

Myself, I think that gender is over-emphasized in general, whether from a conservative Christian perspective, or a secular feminist one.

Tzeentch

the inherent oppression tied into our view of God as a man. — Bridget Eagles

I don't agree with this.

Or is the fact that the Virgin Mary, a symbol of purity and virtue, is female also oppressive to men?

Echarmion

Is there actually any doctrinal support for the christian god having a gender?

3017amen

↪Echarmion

Not really. It can be interpreted metaphorically that Father's are traditionally the protectors of the family, and historically the bread-winners. God is proclaiming Himself as our protector and supplier.

In the NT there are passages that state God is not a man, but rather a Spirit. (1 John 4:12 say, "No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." In Exodus 33:20 God says, "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.")

However, in the Bible we see masculine pronouns and responsibilities in order to reveal Himself to us. By using the male titles, God supposedly made it easier for us to understand Him [Jesus]. But there again, there are translation issues, lost gospels, early church politics, and other information that could have shed better light on that... .

Gnomon

this argument is not seeking to feminize God but rather to view God as a genderless being. — Bridget Eagles

The so-called "philosopher's god" was typically viewed as an abstraction with no physical features. But the gods of traditional religions typically reflected the stratified social conditions of ancient times. Tribal gods would tend to be more egalitarian, but the gods of urbanized people were modeled on their kings, who were almost always militaristic males. They wouldn't have viewed their gods as oppressive to women, since they didn't see their wives as oppressed, but merely playing different roles in society, a step above children and slaves.

Women in our modern cultures, who have jobs outside the home, and mechanical slaves to do much of the scut work, live in a different world. But they are still dominated by men, simply because the male gender characteristics (e.g. aggressiveness) haven't evolved to suit the more integrated organization of society. But women can now imagine a deity who is more female friendly than those arrogant ancient tyrants.

In my personal worldview, there is still a role for a First Cause deity. However, that role is defined not to reflect modern, slightly more democratic & equitable social conditions, but to suit the logical requirements of an immaterial world creator outside of space & time. My G*D is an abstract metaphysical entity, with mental properties similar to those of humans, but no material physical body. That means no hormones or emotions, and no genitals or gender. Not even a hermaphrodite.

Unfortunately, I suspect that such a vaguely defined deity would not appeal to most people, including theistic feminists. It would be suitable only for those who are philosophically inclined, and who have less need for the community of the various religious tribes who still try to maintain a tenuous connection to those ancient personalized gods & goddesses.

Philosopher's god : "The God of the ancient philosophers is an abstract object; he has all the reality of the square root of 16. This so-called God is not alive. He is beyond time and change, not the Ancient of Days but the Eternal One. The God of the philosophers is passionless, incapable of being moved to hot anger and tears by the human condition. He is serene and untroubled. . . . "
http://home.nwciowa.edu/wacome/gbgp.htm

Artemis

Or is the fact that the Virgin Mary, a symbol of purity and virtue, is female also oppressive to men? — Tzeentch

If God is the powerful rulers and also a man, then it suggests that men are powerful rulers--over whom? Women usually. Ergo, women become oppressed.

The Virgin Mary symbolism would simply absolve men of, but impose on women, the need to be pure (ie, chaste) and obviously, that's exactly how it's played out socially.

Tzeentch

If God is the powerful rulers and also a man, then it suggests that men are powerful rulers--over whom? Women usually. Ergo, women become oppressed. — Artemis

That's all projection.

When positive qualities are attributed to one sex, it doesn't follow that the opposite sex is devoid of such qualities. That's the unconscious, false step people make all the time, but that step is being made in no other place than their own heads. Likewise for the idea that the presence of a positive quality in the opposite sex would confer some form of superiority.

The Virgin Mary symbolism would simply absolve men of, but impose on women, the need to be pure (ie, chaste) and obviously, that's exactly how it's played out socially. — Artemis

This is nonsense. Chasteness is taught as a Christian virtue to both men and women. Or does 'no sex out of wedlock' apply just to women?

Projection, projection, projection!

Artemis

Projection, projection, projection! — Tzeentch

Are you hoping if you just repeat yourself, you'll magically be right without paying any attention to the way Christianity has actually affected society and the way people behave/what they believe?

Of course it's projection. But not mine; it's how the majority of Christians follow the teachings of the Bible.

Tzeentch

Of course it's projection. But not mine; — Artemis

Of course it's not!

3017amen

↪Tzeentch

Don't mean to double-team, but indeed you've hit a nerve there:

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . .. They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres." (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

Some atheists should take a chill-pill and use a little common sense. I think one can safely infer that God is spirit, and not 'a man'. But I suppose that would be Metaphysical LOL.

Echarmion

If God is the powerful rulers and also a man, then it suggests that men are powerful rulers--over whom? Women usually. Ergo, women become oppressed. — Artemis

I think it would, however, be mistaken to blame the oppression of women on the rise of christianity (or any specific religion). Women were essentially considered property in ancient and pre-modern China as well. Almost all societies around the globe, with some exceptions, were patrilineal, which means that women could not inherit property and had to integrate into their husband's family without having any initial status.

Christianity might actually have been beneficial to women in the long term, less because of it's content and more because it destroyed traditional kinship structures in western Europe, leading to different marriage patterns and a higher rate of women owning property.

Artemis

to blame the oppression of women on the rise of christianity — Echarmion

I would say, Christianity didn't invent it, but it was founded on it, benefited from it, and endorsed it.

Christianity might actually have been beneficial to women in the long term — Echarmion

Maybe in some ways, and not so much in other ways. It's holding the US back at the moment.

Shamshir

Jewish mysticism has a tradition of viewing God as male and female. — Noble Dust

As does every other. The traditional sense of gender is as extro- ambi- and introversion; rather than the mockup that's taken its place.

I would say, Christianity didn't invent it, but it was founded on it, benefited from it, and endorsed it. — Artemis

I don't see how it would benefit from it, considering women are the prominent benefactor of Christianity.

And if it endorses such behaviour, then why did Jesus defend the woman caught in adultery, against the Jewish law?

BC

God as a man. Genesis 1:27 states, “So God created mankind in his own image — Bridget Eagles

There are few choice that fit human experience: Either God is male, female, or neuter. Most gods are male or female.

You should known that "mankind" and "man" when it is a general reference, is a gendered Anglo-Saxon term that applies to all humans, male and female.

god must be atheist

Bridget, if your argument stood, then god would not only be genderless, but would be also tiger-like, wheat-like, mollusk-like, etc. etc., since he created them all, and your argument (how I understood it, but I am not sure of this) states that god created images of himself.

In additoin to that, there are 3,407 versions of bible translation in English. Some say "He created him in his own image", some say "He created Adam in his own image", some say "He created man in his own image," etc. etc.

You can't cherry pick which version to use. Or maybe you can, and you should, because if you read enough bible, you'll see that it contradicts its own self more ways than you can pronounce the name of god.

Hanover

You should known that "mankind" and "man" when it is a general reference, is a gendered Anglo-Saxon term that applies to all humans, male and female. — Bitter Crank

Beat me to it.

Better evidence of his maleness is that he's referred to as the Father. If He were a She, He couldn't have banged Mary and given us Jesus I suppose. But, as noted, there's plenty of room within most religions to treat God as genderless and even without any human form at all.

At any rate, if one is looking for sexism within religion, one needn't look far, so I think the the OP's point might be conceded that women might feel unwelcome in certain churches (but not others).

Bartricks

↪Bridget Eagles

I am interested in what it would take for someone to be genderless.

Can, for instance, someone who is immaterial have a gender? That is, can there be non-physical minds that have genders, or is gender something that belongs to physical bodies?

alcontali

As a point of clarification, this argument is not seeking to feminize God but rather to view God as a genderless being. — Bridget Eagles

If God were male, then God would be involved in sexual reproduction. Why else do two sexes exist? That means that God would be meant to have a wife and children. The Quran strictly rejects that view. The Quran insists that God has absolutely NO wife and NO children:

Quran 6:100. Allah is the creator of the heavens and the earth. How could He have a son when He does not have a wife? He created all things and He is all-knowing.

Therefore, in Islam, the concept of gender simply does not apply to God. Hence, in Islam god is indeed viewed as being genderless.

BC

women might feel unwelcome in certain churches — Hanover

Some women might feel unwelcome in certain churches... because most churches have large numbers of women as members.

BC

↪Bartricks

For a god who is all knowing, ever present everywhere, all powerful, gender is irrelevant. The 'personalized' god is likely to be gendered, because we can't relate warmly to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient eternal being who is spirit to boot.

Our most elevated conceptions about god (God) are beyond gender.

Bartricks

↪Bitter Crank

But can something that lacks any physical features have a gender? or do you have to have a physical body to have a gender? That is, can a mind alone have a gender?

3017amen

↪Bitter Crank

↪Bartricks

Awesome questions! It reminds me of that movie (can't remember the name but it had Gene Wilder in it with a bunch of brains in a jar lab talking to one another).

Because I think that God is Spirit only, my instinct is telling me that he is both male and female. Which of course is consistent with the paradox of self-reference, thus defying logic.

Of course the closest we come to that 'physically' is the phenomenon known as 'ambiguous genitalia babies'.

Artemis

I don't see how it would benefit from it, considering women are the prominent benefactor of Christianity — Shamshir

They aren't.

And if it endorses such behaviour, then why did Jesus defend the woman caught in adultery, against the Jewish law? — Shamshir

There are countless examples the in the Bible that suggest adultery is a crime, especially female adultery.

Shamshir

They aren't. — Artemis

Plain wrong.

There are countless examples the in the Bible that suggest adultery is a crime, especially female adultery. — Artemis

Yes, and the one I noted doesn't state otherwise - but it shows that Christianity doesn't endorse oppressing women, but treats them fairly.

Artemis

Christianity doesn't endorse oppressing women, but treats them fairly. — Shamshir

1 Timothy 2:12 New International Version (NIV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.

Okiedokie.

BC

↪Bartricks

Minds without bodies do not exist. We have bodies that produce mind. The personalized god, the bearded fellow Jehovah, or the voluptuous Aphrodite, or the powerful female god Athena have bodies and mind, therefore gender. It's hard to relate to the formless spirit. The Logos, the Word, isn't embodied, isn't gendered.

My shtick is that our best take on god puts IT (not him, her) beyond gender. Jesus had a body and gender. God did not. Apparently the Archangel Michael or Gabriel, which ever one was responsible for fucking Mary and leaving her a virgin, was embodied enough to get the job done, but let's not get into angelology.

It just depends on how you look at god(s). Indian gods like Shiva or Vishnu are embodied and gendered -- they actually exist in their temple forms (or so I have read). That's fine, nothing wrong with that. It just depends on what culture you are operating from.

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Christianity doesn't endorse oppressing women, but treats them fairly. — Shamshir

You do know that Christianity, primarily, kept women from voting for centuries. in the West, right?

Why would you think Christians thought women equal when in reality they were thought too inferior to vote?

Regards
DL

3017amen

↪Gnostic Christian Bishop

Are you an angry Atheist?

Gnostic Christian Bishop

Bridget Eagles — Bridget Eagles

Christianity has worked hard to take the feminine out of god right from the time they usurped the Jewish god and made him theirs, even though Yahweh was seen by the Jews to be androgynous, just like most of the Eastern gods.

We created them in our image and called them adam. adam, not capitalized means society or the tribe.

Note how in this version, women are called adam.

I also have a link that shows that the grammatical breakdown of Elohim, Yahweh to me, shows god as androgynous.

Start at th3 9.3 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TndLzFZI9A

Regards
DL

3017amen

↪Gnostic Christian Bishop

What is your definition of a 'moral man'? Was Jesus a 'moral man' too?

A Genderless God

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions