Hi Melinda, you will always be disappointed if you try to match any mention of God as Father with a maternal equivalent. This is human reasoning, and we can not fit God to our boxes hewn from environmental circumstance.

This does not however reduce the standing of woman in relation to man, cf. Galatians 3:28 -

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Could I offer just two comments.

There are many gender related analogies for God, both masculine and feminine.  God is like a hen gathering her chicks.  etc.  The gender is not what is important but what the author of the metaphor is trying to get us to understand about God.

Secondly, as we consider the idea of us all being made in the image of God we would not want to overlay the masculine attributes that have been raised in this thread on what it means for a woman to be created in the image of God.  I would therefore argue that the image of God has nothing to do with male-ness or female-ness.

Hi Melinda, you will always be disappointed if you try to match any mention of God as Father with a maternal equivalent. This is human reasoning, and we can not fit God to our boxes hewn from environmental circumstance.

I;m not at all disappointed David and I’m not trying to match any mention of GOd as Father with a maternal equivalent, whatever gave you that ludicrous idea? 

My question as outlined in my previous post remains unanswered :IF I accept GOrdon’s reasoning is there any other logical conclusion other than that fathers are more like GOd than mothers?

what is really behind your questions, Melinda?

what is really behind your questions, Melinda?

THat’s a bizzare post David, what is really behind your question David ?or “behind” anything that people post on these forums.  I’m not sure whether to be perplexed by your post or offended by the implication that I have some sort of ulterior motive.  Isn’t this board for discussion? I’ve clearly stated my view in my first post on this topic, now I’m trying to understand other’s views, is there a problem with that?

If there is a problem please PM me or take it up with the moderators who can suitably chastise me or take action because it would be good to keep this thread on topiic.

I’m not trying to offend, Melinda, nor accusing you of an ulterior motive. It’s just that from my reading of this particular thread you have been given many answers but they don’t seem to satisfy.

Melinda Seed - 01 May 2008 10:07 PM

Thanks for the reply Gordon.

It seems to me that if I accept your reasoning about the relationship between descriptions of God, Godly traits and human roles, it leads me to conclude that as “fatherhood” is intrinsic to God’s nature (as opposed to “motherhood") then human fathers must be more like God than human mothers.

I don’t know. You didn’t ask me about mothers, and there is less in the Bible about them in relation to God, so I ‘d have to think about that some more.

An initial guess would be that mothers share in the fathering in the same way that Eve shares in the work of Adam. And Eve is equally in the image of God, though her role is not the same as that of Adam.

I don’t think that I’ve asked that many questions David and where I have asked a question it has been directed to a particular poster and in response to a particular point.

If you’d like to offer the definitive answer to this thread, please do go ahead, I thought the idea was to have a discussion which IMHO involves tossing answers and questions back and forth.

THanks Gordon, we cross posted, would be interested in your further thoughts about whether fathers are more God like than mothers.  I’ll think about the mother/father thing in relation to Adam and Eve and post again if I have an inspired thought.

Oh, and I added a sentence too! (The last one about Eve being equally in the image of God, although her role is not the same as that of Adam).

I’m thinking that fatherhood probably describes a function, and a pattern of relationship—a pattern which is eternal within the Godhead, and so unchanging (that is, God the Father is eternally the Father of the Son), but it is not a statement about the being of God in the same way that “God is light” is a statement about his being.

If this is true, then fulfilling a role of being a ‘father’, or not, wouldn’t impinge on whether you were in the image of God. You could still be fully and completely in the image of God as a baby in the womb, even though you had never been a father.

Come to think of it, I suppose Jesus was never a father and yet we consider him to be in the image of God.

And Gordon, Jesus is certainly ‘father’, following Isaiah 9:6.

Chris, I’ve thought of that as true of Jesus in relation to the nation of Israel, so it is functionally (or perhaps metaphorically) appropriate to describe him this way in Isaiah’s prophecy, in much the same way as it is functionally (or perhaps metaphorically) appropriate to describe God as having feathers (Ps 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 68:13; 91:4).

Indeed I believe God is spoken of as having wings much more often than Jesus is spoken of as being a father, whatever you may make of that. It doesn’t seem to be a normal or usual way of thinking about Jesus, anyway.

John Clapton said:

You are wrong, Ken.  Mary may be venerated by Catholics, but not worshiped as God.  I think the comment is tawdry.

She is called Co-Redemptrix, if that is not God like, I apologise for my tawdry remark.
In other words Mary can redeem people like Jesus: this is how I interpret “co-Redemptrix”. That would make her a goddess, if Jesus is part of the godhead? 

Apparently The Vatican hasnt ratified Mary as co-Redemptrix yet, but is probably about to in response to millions who signed a petition to the Pope for this to happen.

Mary as Co Redemptrix explained

That is like saying that the Ancient title “Theotokos” makes her greater than God. Most people think it means “Mother of God”, but it is more correctly understood as “bearer of God”. We always use words in Theology that needs to be understood properly, otherwise we get into a semantic argument like you are perpetuating.

As it was explained, co- does not imply equality; it implies cooperation. I think, however, we can easily say Pontius Pilate was co-Redemptrix- yikes. I do not understand the need for this new title, really. The Theotokos appellation was an obvious need during the controversies of the Nature of Christ during the early centuries...I don’t see the need for this title.

hi everyone, i just want to say a sincere thanks for all of your considered answers.  It has been most helpful. 

I am now conscious that the heading of my thread was probably not the best as it appears that some have been encouraged by this to head off on tangents and others have become quite passionate about their position.  This was not my intention - so I do apologise if it has caused any angst.

I appreciate the time you have all taken to contribute to this thread - it’s been interesting to hear what is “out there”.

I’ll stick with God the Father and leave it at that.

Thanks everyone,
Sharon