In
Rosemary Radford Reuther’s “The Female of God,” she analyzes God’s gender as
primarily male-based and relates it to today’s gender roles in society. In the
bible, God is almost always described as a male and because of this, males are
seen to be the only ones capable of creation or power. Males are the head of
the house, the lawmakers, and the creators, and the females are the caregivers
and watch over the creation. The primary and secondary relationship of this
carries over into our society today because traditionally, males are the
breadwinners of the household while the females stay at home and take care of
the family. Growing up I always believed in this traditional viewpoint, but I
never thought that it was due to the lessons from my early Sunday school
classes as a child. It is interesting to see that these traditions may have
stemmed from the bible, but how will it affect believers today now that females
are seen to be just as powerful as men. Reuther touches on this subject by describing a feminist movement that wanted to move God’s gender to female, but this
movement was ultimately unsuccessful. The only solution that may be plausible
is to see that “God(ess) must be seen as beyond maleness and femaleness.” (86)
To me this statement is really powerful and holds a lot of truth in it. God
should not be defined as a gender, but above all genders in general. He should
just be seen as the ultimate ruler while both female and male characters are
his primary supporters. God has made us all equal beings and his role should
help reflect that instead of putting one above the other. In the future, I hope
to see more acceptance of this concept and growth towards equality of both
genders.
Udayana states that there are seven ways to prove that God is in existence; effects, atomic combination, suspension, human skills, authoritative knowledge, Revelation, and atoms. He also calls Him the "all-knowing, imperishable God." He is imperishable God because he is the only one who could create atoms because humans are not able to. Also, humans can not break atoms or destroy them and he is stating that the only person that can do that is God because he created atoms. He mentions the difference between the cause and effect to validate if there is a God. He brings up the argument that "Things like the earth must have a cause, because they are produced by a body (101)." Some deity had to have made the earth for their pleasure. He also relies on objections to prove that God is real. Udayana does bring up good ideas to prove that God is real. The best argument to me is that he created atoms. Humans are unable to destroy atoms or to create them; so they had to be...
I agree with your statement that "he should just be seen as the ultimate ruler..." It does not matter if he is woman or man it just matters that we understand that he loves us.
ReplyDeleteI am sure the majoriry of people know that God is a male even though he is created in our own image. Also, God created a man first then a women and had a man over a women just like how Christ is over the Church. I know that we should not put a gender on him but why do we call him "Our Father." I am all for equality, but in the religious framework it will be as it is.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your blog statement about God as non-gendered. God is suppose to be a reflection of those they created. God is stated to have created both male and female. However, associating God as "he" enforces the idea in us that God is male and is not powerful but is the most powerful, knowledgable, and wise. To believe that God is "he" and has all of these qualities suggests that men have these qualities and/or that women are incapable of having this qualities. This reaffirms the sexist societies ideas of weak women and all powerful men.
ReplyDelete