Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SeattleGhostWriter

Why God’s Identification as Male Is the Key to Understanding Life’s Meaning

Recommended Posts

I am always reading and looking for new information. A couple of weeks ago, I came across this article. The title definitely drew me in. Maybe out of curiosity. It is at the website (and there is a Facebook page too) called Biblical Gender Roles. Sounds quite interesting doesn't it? 

I'm reading along and everything appears honkey dorey. I read through and realized I was a bit detached and had to take another read through. After four or five read throughs (just to make sure I was understanding and processing what I was reading), I was dumbfounded. 

According to the website, the author (or authors as there really are no names attached to the articles) appear to take the position: 
 

  • The Bible apparently makes a distinct difference between the gender roles and that woman was not created after God's image and likeness
  • Women are a weaker vessel because Man is God's image bearer only
  • Women are subjugated to the authority and demands of her husband and has no right of refusal (some articles advocate Biblical right to marital rape



Well, I had to provide a response in three separate articles of my own to address the major problems. 

Oh, what is the article I am referencing? Why God’s Identification as Male Is the Key to Understanding Life’s Meaning

My responses - in three separate essays: 

An LDS Perspective on Why God's Identification as Male is the Key to Understanding Life's Meaning

The first part of this response focused on the context and foundation of the assertion being made, the question that is being addressed and answered, and whether or not the writer has given due diligence in providing an accurate, scriptural response and answer to the question postulated. Along with this, second part of that article briefly introduced some of the main assertions that are cause for questioning and examination and how they falter in meeting true scriptural teaching on the nature of God, masculinity, femininity, and gender roles. The third part explored a more in-depth analysis of the presenting issues derived from the main points of the article itself and how a more appropriate answer is given to the misinformation of the article under review. 

Part Two: An LDS Perspective on Why God's Identification as Male Is the Key to Understanding Life's Meaning

In the second part, it was contended that there is a linguistic issue regarding the Hebrew and Greek languages. Namely, that all languages have masculine, feminine, and neutral aspects. From here, the third part of this article focused on understanding the nature of how the Bible has some symbolism toward a divine and sovereign feminine gender role within the Divine Council and provided evidence as it relates to a Divine council of Heavenly Parents - God, the Father, and Goddess the Mother. The response examined the nature of human gender roles in light of Divine gender roles, and the divine institution of marriage and how this is represented in the symbolism of the New Testament of Jesus Christ, his parable of the ten virgins, and the reference to Christ being the Bridegroom and the Church being the Bride of Christ. 

Part Three: The Work and the Glory of God is to Bring to Pass Man's Eternal Life and Immortality

In this third, and final, essay; the concept of human existence and experience involves answering the initial question - Life's meaning and purpose. The writer of the article: Why God's Identification as Male is Key to Understanding Life Meaning becomes a misnomer in answering the question it sets out to answer. 

After reviewing the initial article (whether from a Christian or Mormon perspective) and then reviewing my responses - what are your thoughts with regard to the nature of creation of man and woman, gender roles, and how do you approach this subject from an apologetic perspective? 

And, how do you identify life meaning and purpose from an apologetic standpoint?

Share this post


Link to post

This seems really hard for most people to understand, but in actuality it is quite simple. Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are the parents of the Lord in the spirit. Heavenly Father and Mary are the parents of the Lord in the flesh. In a similar fashion, but with one important difference, all of us (except Adam and Eve-get to that in a second) are the spirit children of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, but unlike the Lord we have two mortal parents of our flesh in which our spirit bodies now exist, our spirit bodies look much like our physical/mortal bodies. Adam and Eve are different from everyone else (including the Lord) in that Adam's spirit (spirit child of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother) was placed in an eternal body that was formed by God the Father of the earth's dust with the assistance of the Lord, also-my understanding is that Heavenly Father with the assistance of the Lord (and a rib from Adam) formed Eve's eternal body and placed her spirit (spirit child of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother) in it. When Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden their bodies became mortal and they are the parents of every mortal who has ever lived on this planet (except the half part of the Lord). Since Adam and Eve were created in the Garden of Eden as equal eternal beings they also dwell in mortality (as do all their children) as equal mortal beings, each with distinct functions necessary for the propagation of the human species. It is because the Lord's human body was the half-product of Heavenly Father that He (the Lord) had to "give up the ghost" since because of the parentage of His actual Father He could not be killed, another important difference. Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post

  Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I think it is clear that the image of God is both male and female.

Just sayin.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Vance said:

  Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I think it is clear that the image of God is both male and female.

Just sayin.

 

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 

1 Cor 11.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Vance said:

  Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I think it is clear that the image of God is both male and female.

Just sayin.

 

The translation you are using does not state what you postulate and neither does the original text that it is translated from. This text you quote was originally written in the plural when it refers to God. If your postulation was "I think it is clear that the image of the Gods is both male and female." You would be correct. There are male Gods and female Gods, but there is not a God who is male and female. That is the meaning I get from what you have written, if I misinterpreted you I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Wrong place to post this since many (most?) here would say knowing God is also woman and that Eve was also in the image of God is necessary to understanding life’s meaning.

interesting, I must have missed out on many a discussion that God is a he/she, not making a joke, I do not understand the statement of refering to God as a woman; given that LDS regard as God The Father of the God Head as a male. If we regard Heavenly Mother as a Goddess and if appropriate to refer to her as  God the Mother, then that God figure would be a woman.

Edited by provoman

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 

1 Cor 11.

Which is very interesting when you consider the Savior.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, CAS said:

The translation you are using does not state what you postulate and neither does the original text that it is translated from. This text you quote was originally written in the plural when it refers to God. If your postulation was "I think it is clear that the image of the Gods is both male and female." You would be correct. There are male Gods and female Gods, but there is not a God who is male and female. That is the meaning I get from what you have written, if I misinterpreted you I apologize.

To me the word "God" is like the words sheep, deer, elk, quail, moose etc. It is both singular and plural.  So, it would be correct to say, "There are male Gods and female Gods".

If we include the previous verse it clears it up even more.

Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
 
It would also be correct if it said.
Vance 1:26 ¶ And the Gods said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  27 So the Gods created man in their own image, in the image of the Gods created they them; male and female created they them.
 
Or in other words,
Abr 4:26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

 

Again, just sayin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not mysterious, at least to me. But what the culture has done to Mary M demonstrates to me why we don't know much about Heavenly Mother.

So Jesus spends the evening with two sisters and the Pharisees and the lawyers don't go cuckoo with all kinds of accusations of sin and misdeeds?

Must have been some kind of legitimate relationship there.

Again, just sayin.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Vance said:

So Jesus spends the evening with two sisters and the Pharisees and the lawyers don't go cuckoo with all kinds of accusations of sin and misdeeds?

Must have been some kind of legitimate relationship there.

Again, just sayin.

In Mormonism "God" is considered an exalted married couple.

Yet we once again try to make Christ an exception to law, despite his words at his baptism.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Vance said:

To me the word "God" is like the words sheep, deer, elk, quail, moose etc. It is both singular and plural.  So, it would be correct to say, "There are male Gods and female Gods".

If we include the previous verse it clears it up even more.

Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
 
It would also be correct if it said.
Vance 1:26 ¶ And the Gods said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  27 So the Gods created man in their own image, in the image of the Gods created they them; male and female created they them.
 
Or in other words,
Abr 4:26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
  27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

 

Again, just sayin.

So, I am not certain if you understood what I was sayin'.  There are male Gods and there are female Gods and there is no individual God that is both male and female. That is pretty much my point in a nutshell. Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, CAS said:

So, I am not certain if you understood what I was sayin'.  There are male Gods and there are female Gods and there is no individual God that is both male and female. That is pretty much my point in a nutshell. Hope that helps.

Trust me he knows it.

Welcome to the board you don't know us all quite yet. :)

Nobody ever said there was a God that was both male and female, at least not in our gospel. Yes we have read the Proclamation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Trust me he knows it.

Welcome to the board you don't know us all quite yet. :)

Nobody ever said there was a God that was both male and female, at least not in our gospel. Yes we have read the Proclamation.

Okay. Thanks for the welcome, I pretty much don't know anyone. All right, I was not sure what was being said so I was just trying to clarify. I'm cool, not trying to push any buttons. I used to be on LDSFF, well I actually still go there some, but I have been looking around for something a little more Church friendly. Trying this out since I have liked some of what I have seen.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/17/2019 at 2:26 PM, CAS said:

Okay. Thanks for the welcome, I pretty much don't know anyone. All right, I was not sure what was being said so I was just trying to clarify. I'm cool, not trying to push any buttons. I used to be on LDSFF, well I actually still go there some, but I have been looking around for something a little more Church friendly. Trying this out since I have liked some of what I have seen.

We are pretty diverse but rabid debates usually only happen between men and women. ;)

Welcome  again.

Edited by mfbukowski
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/16/2019 at 5:34 PM, CAS said:

So, I am not certain if you understood what I was sayin'.  There are male Gods and there are female Gods and there is no individual God that is both male and female. That is pretty much my point in a nutshell. Hope that helps.

There is no reason to think there might be hermaphrodite Gods. So I am not sure why you would think I might be trying to say that.

Welcome aboard.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Vance said:

There is no reason to think there might be hermaphrodite Gods. So I am not sure why you would think I might be trying to say that.

Welcome aboard.

Glad to be wrong on my interpretation! Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/16/2019 at 4:40 AM, mfbukowski said:

Not mysterious, at least to me. But what the culture has done to Mary M demonstrates to me why we don't know much about Heavenly Mother.

Good point, although I would probably more blame the stigma on the Roman Pontiff, "Gregory the Great," which has hung on Mary M even to this day. Really, only relatively recently has the Catholic Church attempted to undo this damage. 

I have a very different view of the begotten nature of Christ, so I don't personally care to speculate about "heavenly mother," and think it best that we don't, which I feel the Church has been prone to do. But to be clear, I think Christ was "begotten" through the oath of a covenant, and that their relationship as Father and Son is one of priesthood covenant rather than physical as many seem prone to speculate on. I feel the Church is in for a huge adjustment here, but I suppose the Lord has deemed it is time. :)   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/19/2019 at 11:14 AM, RevTestament said:

Good point, although I would probably more blame the stigma on the Roman Pontiff, "Gregory the Great," which has hung on Mary M even to this day. Really, only relatively recently has the Catholic Church attempted to undo this damage. 

I have a very different view of the begotten nature of Christ, so I don't personally care to speculate about "heavenly mother," and think it best that we don't, which I feel the Church has been prone to do. But to be clear, I think Christ was "begotten" through the oath of a covenant, and that their relationship as Father and Son is one of priesthood covenant rather than physical as many seem prone to speculate on. I feel the Church is in for a huge adjustment here, but I suppose the Lord has deemed it is time. :)   

Interesting idea. I certainly have no trouble with it. Makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...