Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!ulysses!smb From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: God's gender Message-ID: <737@ulysses.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Dec-83 22:15:10 EST Article-I.D.: ulysses.737 Posted: Mon Dec 12 22:15:10 1983 Date-Received: Wed, 14-Dec-83 01:25:53 EST References: <670@ssc-vax.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 56 From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) Subject: God's gender Message-ID: <670@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 10-Dec-83 17:42:11 EST Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle > As for why it is "obvious" that the Deity is neither male nor female -- > surely you jest. If you assume an incorporeal Deity -- as most modern > religions do -- then the concepts of X and Y chromosomes, eggs, sperm, > etc., don't apply. > Christianity, of course, is not a modern religion. Christ was a man who > walked on this earth just like you and I. The concept of marriage, of a man > and wife uniting to death, is symbolic of the relationship between Christ and > the Church. The concepts of male and female, in this sense, are not limited > to mere physical realities. The original question (in 662@ssc-vax.UUCP) was a followup to an article on Judaism; hence considerations of the sex of Jesus do not apply. My reference to "modern religions" was intended to include Judaism, Christianity, their successors, and others; it was specifically intended to exclude older anthropomorphic animist religions, i.e., the Greek or Norse gods. If my wording was imprecise and/or insulting, I apologize. But you raise several other points that are worth discussing. First is the question of the nature of Jesus. This was the cause of many bloody fights for several hundred years. Other readers are no doubt far better qualified than I to supply historical data; I will only note that one can easily speak of *both* Jesus -- a mortal man -- and the Christ -- a spiritual concept. You also claim, though, that the "concepts of male and female are... not limited to mere physical realities". That's a rather strong statement to advance without justification, especially since you called Dave Sherman to task for his equally categorical statement that the concept of sex does not apply to the Deity. I could make a persuasive case that the prevailing attitudes towards women at the time of Jesus were the source of such sym- bolisms; that any strong leader *had* to be male, hence the attribute of maleness was ascribed to the Deity. (Jewish culture of the time was very strongly influenced by Greek ideas and practices. Some scholars claim that what are today seen as traditional Jewish views towards women are in reality Greek ideas incorporated during the Hellenistic period. More data on request.) As for the sex of Jesus -- given that the logic of Christianity (today) demands that he had human form, and hence was capable of suffering and self-sacrifice -- he couldn't have been *both* male and female. And remember, given the attitudes of the times a woman would not have been listened to at all. I'm rambling, I'm afraid, so let me summarize my essential points: a) Judaism does not accept that G-d is either male or female, or even that the concept applies; b) your claim that Christian theology demands a masculine Deity needs a great deal more substantiation; and c) I claim that the sexual attri- butes portrayed in the New Testament are more a reflection of the times than a statement about the way the universe works. --Steve Bellovin