The maternal qualities of God

[St. SteVen]

Say what? ---

We refer to God as Father, and we should...
But what about the maternal qualities of our heavenly parent?

- Other-centered
- Self-giving
- Co-suffering
- Self-sacrificial

Thanks to Wm. Paul Young for the list.

[

 

[Lambano]

(I remember when Young's The Shack came out.)

 

[St. SteVen]

(I remember when Young's The Shack came out.)

He's quoting Brad Jersak. (hooray)
And Baxter Kruger...

[

 

[St. SteVen]

God the Mother. (the matriarchal qualities of God)​

Say what? ---

We refer to God as Father, and we should...
But what about the maternal qualities of our heavenly parent?

- Other-centered
- Self-giving
- Co-suffering
- Self-sacrificial

Thanks to Wm. Paul Young for the list.

 

[ScottA]

Say what? ---

We refer to God as Father, and we should...
But what about the matriarchal qualities of our heavenly parent?

- Other-centered
- Self-giving
- Co-suffering
- Self-sacrificial

Thanks to Wm. Paul Young for the list.

[

While there is no virtue lacking in God, his own defining points do not include Him as "Mother."

On the contrary, God created man male and female, then revealed the relationship of the Church with himself with him as Husband, and we the Church as Bride or female according to the "likeness" that he created us in. Wherein he also shows us as being taken out of him (by example, with Adam as male and father)...after which we in our part sinned bringing sin into that example relationship--the cause of Judgement and death for all.

In other words, the would-be "Mother" was put to death. After which God only allowed his own Father-born part to return unto the relationship. Again, wherein there is no virtue lacking--as the "Bride" specifically has been given passage, but not the "Mother", for she is not mentioned, nor is there any mention of a Last Eve (as with Adam) or such a one giving birth as "Mother."

 

[St. SteVen]

While there is no virtue lacking in God, his own defining points do not include Him as "Mother."

On the contrary, God created man male and female, then revealed the relationship of the Church with himself with him as Husband, and we the Church as Bride or female according to the "likeness" that he created us in. Wherein he also shows us as being taken out of him (by example, with Adam as male and father)...after which we in our part sinned bringing sin into that example relationship--the cause of Judgement and death for all.

In other words, the would-be "Mother" was put to death. After which God only allowed his own Father-born part to return unto the relationship. Again, wherein there is no virtue lacking--as the "Bride" specifically has been given passage, but not the "Mother", for she is not mentioned, nor is there any mention of a Last Eve (as with Adam) or such a one giving birth as "Mother."

Perhaps you are missing the point.
The OP doesn't intend to label God as mother, but rather to point
to the shared maternal qualities of our heavenly parent?

- Other-centered
- Self-giving
- Co-suffering
- Self-sacrificial

 

[ScottA]

Perhaps you are missing the point.
The OP doesn't intend to label God as mother, but rather to point
to the shared maternal qualities of our heavenly parent?

- Other-centered
- Self-giving
- Co-suffering
- Self-sacrificial

No, I do understand the point. My point was to point out that when separated, the women/bride/mother--is [biblically] described as sinful.

 

[Lambano]

37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. (Matthew 23:37)

14 But Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.” 15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee. (Isaiah 49:14-15)

 

[St. SteVen]

No, I do understand the point. My point was to point out that when separated, the women/bride/mother--is [biblically] described as sinful.

The labeling is a moot point.
Are other-centeredness, self-giving, co-suffering and self-sacrificial sinful?

 

[quietthinker]

The objective of evil, might I say, (in all it's subtly) is to detract from the truth of the character of God. Evil distorts, deflects, misrepresents and what better way to do it than come disguised as an 'angel of light'.

The idea that God is solely male (as we understand it) is one of those subtleties.
For the sake of seeing clearly in the window given into his character through Jesus, it behooves us to not focus on gender.

I reflect on how Paul had his socks blown off his understanding of God at his encounter on the Damascus road.
I reflect on the energy he spent bringing his 'blown off socks' to the Gentile world.

Now, for the sake of some here who struggle to 'get' metaphors, I will leave it at that!

 

[ScottA]

The labeling is a moot point.
Are other-centeredness, self-giving, co-suffering and self-sacrificial sinful?

If I understand your meaning correctly, no. The point is "separation" from God places one in a state of sinfulness.

 

[Beebster]

I may be way off the mark of your OP, but I believe that Christ is both male and female (Spiritually) not physically.
I'm not talking about innies and outies here.

 

[St. SteVen]

I may be way off the mark of your OP, but I believe that Christ is both male and female (Spiritually) not physically.

Right.
It's some matronly characteristics that we can see in God.
Like other-centeredness, self-giving, co-suffering and self-sacrificial.
In humans, these characteristics are more prominent in Moms than Dads.

 

[Lambano]

I may be way off the mark of your OP, but I believe that Christ is both male and female (Spiritually) not physically.
I'm not talking about innies and outies

That brings up the question, what does being “male” and/or “female” mean? Is gender more than having a penis or a vagina?

If this is true, how does that apply to the gender identification and transgender situation today?

Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
Except for Lola
Lo-Lo-Lo-Lo-Lola

 

[Lambano]

(I remember when Young's The Shack came out.)

He's quoting Brad Jersak. (hooray)
And Baxter Kruger...

[

The same author wrote a controversial novel exploring the concept of the Trinity. The starting point was that old (really bad) joke:

“I saw God in a vision last night.”
“Oh? What did God look like?”
“Well, She’s Black.”


I actually recommend the book, though it makes me a bit uncomfortable. To paraphrase from the book, “The purpose here is not to reinforce your existing preconceptions of Me”.

 

[MatthewG]

I’ve only head that Heavenly Jerusalem is the mother to us all…

Anyway I do believe male and female both have qualities of both.

God himself is a perfect plurality of masculine and feminine…

God created man, then used man to create the woman.

Both are parts of a puzzle and they fit together obviously.

All us born with a body, that is flesh and has a soul with in it.

Other opinions may differ but these are mine.

 

[quietthinker]

I actually recommend the book, though it makes me a bit uncomfortable.

I think that's what it's intended to do. It challenges our presumptions, it makes us think about what we've taken for granted.

 

[Lambano]

I may be way off the mark of your OP, but I believe that Christ is both male and female (Spiritually) not physically.
I'm not talking about innies and outies here.

You may be more correct than you know. On another forum, a user pointed out that in Revelation 1:13:

13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.

The Greek word translated “paps” is mastos (from which we get the word “mastectomy”), meaning “breasts” or “nipples”, rather than stethos (from which we get the word “stethoscope”), meaning “chest”. (The user was arguing that saying the glorified Christ had boobs was blasphemous and Revelation should be stricken from the Canon. You meet all kinds on an Internet forum.) Translating it “paps” as the KJV did is anatomically correct and maintains both textual literalism and Christ’s masculinity, but why was John talking about Jesus’s nipples?

That’s just plain weird.

The Bible can be a very strange book. And in a way, warts and all, that makes it all the more authentic.

 

[St. SteVen]

I think that's what it's intended to do. It challenges our presumptions, it makes us think about what we've taken for granted.

I haven't read the book. (my wife did) I have seen the movie.
Yes, it really pushes the envelope. I liked that part.

 

[Lambano]

Yes, it really pushes the envelope. I liked that part.

You like pushing the envelope? Who knew?