Some simple logic


Humans, we are told, are made in the image of God.

If God is Love, then a basic human capacity is to love and be loved.

If God is Creator, than it follows that creativity is a clear path to human fulfillment.

If God is all-knowing, than the desire for knowledge is good.

If God sees the end from the beginning, it makes sense for humans to live with an eye to the future.

If God made humans male and female after God’s likeness (Genesis 1:27), it is absurd to think of God as exclusively male, or exclusively female.

Just thinking.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Some simple logic

  1. Just thinking or brainfart.
    You said:
    If God made humans male and female after God’s likeness (Genesis 1:27), it is absurd to think of God as exclusively male, or exclusively female.

    But King James Version, Genesis 1:26: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the . . . earth.”
    With that little background, verse 27 simply
    punctuates your incredible perplexity, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he [we] them.”

    Of course you know but some of your youthful readers may not. Political correctness has muddied our language. We once all understood that he could be generic and then included she without gender confusion. Now, with the mud and unwarranted brevity, you create confusion and ridicule my religion.

    Your sophisticated confusion hangs on mud, pollution.

  2. Thank you for your comment. I do agree that it is always helpful to look at a verse in its context, and not to do so can cause confusion for some readers who don’t already know that context. So let’s not go any further without laying that out in full (Genesis 1:26-28):

    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. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

    However, I’m not quite sure where you see the mud here, as you make my point when you say:

    “We once all understood that he could be generic and then included she without gender confusion.”

    … I take it from this that you are remembering how it used to be taught that in the rules of English grammar, “when the gender is not known the masculine takes the preference,” and more generally that the masculine pronoun in English has traditionally done double duty by being used in some contexts as gender-specific and at other times as an inclusive generic; which made a deal more sense as a grammatical rule for our particular language than it did about the way the world works, or should work. And political correctness, not understanding the difference between the rules of grammar and the relation between the sexes in society, has indeed created for younger generations a deal of grammatical awkwardness as ways have been sought to avoid teaching that particular English rule.

    But if the word “he” in verse 26 is, as you remind us, such a gender-inclusive word that really means “humanity” (not “males”) and thus includes the “male and female” of verse 27, then my comment simply clarifies that point, which might be missed by those who would otherwise be confused by the idiom of the language we happen to be speaking.

    As it is, it is clearly humanity as a whole, both male and female (as you point out, the one gramatically included in the other), who are, in verse 26, given dominion over the earth, as is also made even clearer in verse 28, when he said to them (now clearly male and female): “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion ” etc… and my point remains, that since it is humanity as such (both”male and female”) who are made in the image of God, the original cannot accurately be assumed to be limited to the characteristics of either. That is an inclusiveness, not of one language’s grammar, but of divine design.

    The Canaanite religion had its exclusively male God (Ba’al) and its exclusively female Goddess (Asherah). The Hebrew Prophets rightly rejected the worship of both.

  3. I agree with your point, and would encourage readers to follow the link to your post. I take it that the assertion “God is love” given by St. John in one of his letters, is a metaphysical assertion that goes beyond particular activities, including the act(s) of creation. I also say that it is legitimate to take this particular assertion as foundational and formulative for theology as such, not merely in terms of Trinitarianism (where love is claimed to pre-exist because of the relation between the Persons of the trinity) but also in terms of fundamental ontology, the question of existence. If, as one of your commenters suggests, love is to be understood as relationship, or (as I would put it) connectedness, then indeed love is foundational for all that exists and also for all that exists, as it were, in potentia. The denial of such connectedness is, then, the basis for the theological categories of sin, the devil, and hell, and in human terms manifests as isolation, anger, fear and all the rest of those things which do not partake of what is called “the Spirit.”

    It is a thornier issue to try to think of love, and hence the nature of God, absent the universe, i.e., the nature of God prior to or apart from what has come into existence. One might even suggest that attempting such thought would put one in danger of the very denial of the essential connectedness already referred to, and as such a logical impossibility leading to self-contradiction. Indeed, since from our point of view it is when existence comes into being that the possibility of the knowledge of God emerges, such thinking would necessarily be speculative, and if possible at all, would need to be approached with both humility and rigor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s