so do you think a person does need a body to have a gender? You've asserted that minds cannot exist apart from bodies. I think that's false. And anyway, we can conceive of the possibility of minds existing apart from bodies.
So, again, can minds have genders or is that only something that physical bodies can have?

I am inclined to think minds by themselves lack genders - there is no such thing as a female or male mind anymore than there are, say, blue or green minds. Not sure though.

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

Yes, but even the Kabbalists demeaned women in every way possible. Shekhinah becomes an evil being when she is imbalanced by the lack of the masculine qualities. Isaac Luria is hopelessly spermatocentric...

There is a definitive translation of the Torah and that is the JPS Study Bible. It's easy to choose the right translation.

There is a definitive translation of the Torah — uncanni

Ay-vey.

(Yah' miche borum gom chalichban meshugene...)

Shekhinah becomes an evil being when she is imbalanced by the lack of the masculine qualities. — uncanni

Doesn't that make perfect sense? Just like how a being with only masculine qualities is horribly unbalanced and will undoubtedly turn away from the Good?

Off topic: deleted

I'm not sure patriarchy is the problem. Whether society is ruled over by men, women or a mix of the two, it would still be having all the same problems it has today. The real culprit is materialism, in its broadest sense.

I'm not sure patriarchy is the problem. — Tzeentch

I concur. "Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!" - The Who, We Won't Get Fooled Again

off topic: deleted

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. — 3017amen

I guess we see this all the time and everywhere - protectors morphing into oppressors - and the reason is simple: To be able to protect one needs power, mental and physical, and power has a tendency to become corrupted. In fact, quite paradoxically so, power combines with the human weakenesses of greed and narcissism, transforming into oppression.

I guess we could say the problem lies in two truths:

1. All fathers are men
2. Not all men are fathers

That's why God is Father and not Man.

Shekhinah becomes an evil being when she is imbalanced by the lack of the masculine qualities. — uncanni

How is the need for gender balance demeaning to either gender?

As does every other. — Shamshir

Every other what?

How is the need for gender balance demeaning to either gender? — Noble Dust

The feminine becomes evil when lacking the masculine, but the opposite is never true. At least in Lurianic mysticism, the masculine principle is always the dominant one.

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

Keyword - in the west.
Meaning only Catholic schmuckery and barbarism.


Tradition.

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" . . . God is seen as foreign to the creation of women — Bridget Eagles

Ummmm . . .

" I guess we could say the problem lies in two truths:

1. All fathers are men
2. Not all men are fathers

That's why God is Father and not Man. "

Sure, that's a great analogy! Furthers the notion that the Father is metaphorical in the Bible... .

Can everyone please respect the subject of the OP and ignore or report all off-topic posts? Thanks.

I think that God needed to be described as a man because of the patriarchal views that majority of all civilizations had and still have at the time, and that is why Jesus was sent to Earth in the form of a man. If God or Jesus were women, I don't think that Christianity would have spread or Jesus would have been taken seriously at all. God knew this and decided that what was best for "his" people was to be portrayed as a man through Jesus. I personally do believe that God is gender-less (and not human for that matter) but we cannot imagine what God looks like so people personify God in a way that they can understand, which for many people (especially when the Bible was written) is as a man. However, I do not think that the spread of Christianity or the idea of God being a man necessarily created or enforces patriarchy because that mindset already existed before Jesus. Also there are many civilizations where Gods of both genders are believed in, but a patriarchal society is still present.

That's a very encouraging analysis and am grateful that you shared that. In a general sense, its comments like those that will help Christianity further its benevolence.

Idealistically, as much as I would have liked to have conceived a 'half woman half man' figure, as absurd as that sounds, I suppose it wouldn't be relatable at all.

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.

There is a problem in the P1 that the consequent does not follow from the antecedent. It seems like you are saying the same as if someone A, who you don’t know, behaves and dresses up like a man, then he or she is not female. Whether God is made in the image of man or not cannot indicate God’s genuine gender if it has. The image is just how we perceive and consider God which shapes by the Bible or other religious work, and our surrounding environment, etc. What A dresses up and behaves like cannot make any difference on his or her genuine gender. Gender is an intrinsic quality which is settled the moment one was born.

Moreover, the conclusion fails to entail the view of a genderless God. Even if the argument is valid and sound, in fact it’s not, the conclusion can only prove that God contributes to patriarchal roles in our society. If the argument’s goal is to prove that God is genderless so that “people of any gender identity can have the ability to see themselves in God,” then I will say this argument is far from its end.

Another point worth mentioning is that if people of any gender identity are able to know the fact that the masculine God is just a manufactured image made to personify God so that they can understand God easily, gender will not be a problem that disables them to see themselves in God. In this way, they can think of God as female and attempt to understand God from different perspectives other than masculine and genderless. By this I mean, if people know that A being behave and dress up like man aims to self-express and help others to know him or her better, they will not have hard time imagine A as woman. Without the limit of a masculine image, people can freely see themselves in God.

"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."

I am entirely in agreement with you in terms of God not needing a gender, as They are beyond this Universe and those conceptual identities of gender. However, what can be said of the value of using gendered pronouns when discussing God.

For example, when we read that humans are made in Imago Dei, the "image of God," then we are immediately connected to God in a way that is inalienable and provides a palatable way to begin one's conceptions of God. If we referred to God without any gendered pronouns would we lose some of the connectivity that was probably intended by the writer(s) of Genesis?

It seems as a concurrent theme throughout the Christian Bible that God is a God who relates to his creation, namely humans. Would it truly be better aligned with the notion of God as a separate entity? In the Gospels we see a portrait of Jesus, who is not wholly God and wholly man. Yes, God is above Creation but God is also fully a part of Creation. Without gender we may lose the foundational understanding that God is both God and Man.

"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."

Okay, new point.
So if we are to reverse this to say
1. If God is made in the image of woman, then God is not male ...
3. If God is made in the image of woman, then God contributes to matriarchal in our society.

If the above statement I've copied from Ms. Eagles is true, how would this change the culture of modern Christianity. Would the same disparities in gender occur, however, this time in favor of women?

It seems as if this would follow if the statement is true.

Is it possible that the discrepancies in the church only mimic those of modern society? If God was popularly regarded as a female wouldn't there still be gendered discrimination perhaps in favor for men given the state of society? Churches and religious culture do not operate in a vacuum from secular culture.

Even if we granted that man is made in the image of God, would that mean man is inherently more holy and righteous?

I think this is a well-formed argument, as your conclusion clearly follows from the premises you gave. However, I think you misinterpret the Genesis 1:27 verse for which you base your argument. This misinterpretation is specifically apparent in premise 1.

It seems that the antecedent "if God is made in the image of man" in premise 1 is conveying something very different than the verse that states "So God created mankind in his own image," and I think this difference is coming from the equivocation of the terms "man" and "mankind." By using "man," it is clear that you are using this term to refer to male gender, which is distinctly different from female gender.

However, it seems more likely that when the term "mankind" is used in Genesis 1:27 it is rather referring to all humans in a general sense, instead of a specific gender of humans like the male gender. This is where I think premise 1 is an incorrect representation, since it is obviously interpreting the verse to mean that supposedly God is made in the image of the male gender, which is something different from what the verse is conveying. There may be other ways to craft a similar argument like this one based off different evidence given by the Bible, but I think this one to be an unsound misinterpretation of the verse given, especially since the latter part of the verse says "male and female he created them."

Apart from this objection, I definitely agree that God should be viewed as a genderless being, because there are numerous problematic implications that arise from exclusively referring God as one gender or another. I appreciate your addressing of the issue, as I think it is one not many think about but also one that all Christians can benefit from!

Yow where @Bridget Eagles at tho...

Hi Bridget,

I understand that you have explicitly laid out your argument for not assigning a gender to God as such:

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.

I take issue with this argument and both of its premises. The issue I have with Premise 1 of your argument has to do with the wording and the fact that it does not match up with the portion of text you used from Genesis as support. The portion of text you cited from Genesis states:

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (1:27)

The thing I would like to stress about this excerpt from Genesis is that it does not state that God was created in MAN’s image as you claimed in Premise 1, but rather that God created men AND women in his OWN image. With this consideration in mind, your first premise does not make sense. Although I understand that it is off-putting that the pronouns “he” and “his” are used in describing God’s actions in the Bible, this is less a reflection of God having an actual gender and more so a reflection of the writers of the Bible attempting ease of convention in describing God’s actions. Since the Bible states the opposite of your first premise, I reject it as holding any weight in your argument.

The issue I have with Premise 2 of your argument is that if God is not female, which we will assume despite my disproval of your first premise for sake of my objection to this one, God could still go against patriarchal roles in our society. In fact, God does go against patriarchal roles in our society as evidenced by the various influential women in the Bible and the fact that the first thing declared “not good” in the world is the absence of woman in Genesis 2:18.

It is for these reasons that I have a problem with your argument. I agree with you that God should be considered a genderless being, but I don’t think that is what this argument accomplishes. I think you would be better off proving that claim another way.