Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: God's gender
Message-ID: <676@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Dec-83 13:12:38 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.676
Posted: Tue Dec 13 13:12:38 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Dec-83 01:43:37 EST
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 59

> 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.

	Your statement only leaves me confused (which, I admit, is not that
difficult to do).  Are you separating "Jesus" from "Christ"?  Do you believe
in the existance of one, both, or niether?

> 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 did present the idea that Christian marriage is a mirror of the
relationship between Christ and the church.  I also stated that Jesus himself
came to earth as a man.

>            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.

	Are you then admitting that a *man* called Jesus Christ existed? 
Besides, I do not think today's logic effects yesterday's history...

> 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.

	I am making a case for Christianity, not Judaism.  The statement that
"sexual attributes" being "portrayed" is confusing.  Stories portray Napolean
as a man; I suppose that's because he was one.  If I said "my wife is portraying
a woman," well, she IS a woman.

	Steve's (valid) argument is why God created Jesus as a man.  My
belief is that it is because He was a man; Steve believes it was because God
(rightly, and logically) assumed that no one would listen to Him (oops, Her) if
She were a woman.  But wait!  We have assumed that Jesus was, in fact, the Son
of God, and must consider what He had to say.  The argument demands that,
regardless of God's gender, we must seriously consider the teachings of Jesus
(as a person, regardless of sex).

	I sat back for a moment, and re-examined the discussion thus far.  I 
noted something that is worth pointing out to other readers:  The Christian
viewpoint, and the case for Christianity, always brings the argument to a 
discussion of Jesus Christ.  This is not so remarkable, since Christ is the
cornerstone, the crux of Christianity.  It is no use trying to prove any
basic Christan doctrine without discussing Christ himself.

	-- Dave Norris
	-- ..!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david