Well said. I find God’s response to Moses on his identity the most philosophically and theologically satisfying answer: I am who I am, I am to be to be= the highest form of being, eternal, uncreated, the one & the many, the male & the female...
Exodus 3:14 KJV "And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." + Philippians 2:7 KJV "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" + John 8:58 KJV "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." [JESUS IS JEHOVAH THE FATHER WHICH IS HOLY AND IS A SPIRIT/GHOST, REBUKE ME IF YOU CAN AND IF I AM WRONG.]
Zechariah 12:10 KJV "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" + Revelation 1:7-8 KJV "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
In my opinion, there's nothing philosophical nor theological in that self-affirmation. Moses dared to ask who he was, and Yahweh was bothered by the question. "I am who I am"....just like it's none of your business, just follow the orders. The scripture is extremely concrete. The rest is theological interpretations that don't fit the narrative.
For me , it is another opportunity to understand how small and limited we are. A human will never be able to fully comprehend God until they are in Heaven with Him. He exists beyond any laws of both nature and philosophy. We only have our small brains and 5 senses no wonder why we can’t fully understand eternal , not limited to anything God.
Same thing but here but I do not think we will still fully comprehend God regarding His Nature, His Transcendness, His Beyondness, etc and perhaps other things that we do not know about God at all! Our languages are limited nor will our languages or ways of express(or whatever, really) transcend to the point we will fully understand what's what about Him since He is beyond those concepts(and all other concepts, etc etc so on and so on). It's the Mystery of God they say! But still, I do believe that in Heaven we will fully understand WHY we don't understand and just know that even though we knew nothing of God, with just His Love (or that Holy Absolute Thing He has made to be Himself) providing us that we will more than sastified and fulfilled Viva Christo Rey
Yes, use the simulation arguement as an example. Imagine the universe as we know it is a computer simulation and the outside universe has properties we cannot comprehend. The simulators could do pretty much what they want, pause the simultstion, slow down the simulation, speed it up, reverse time and change something, on and on
I actually like what Scott Hahn has to say about God's fatherhood - God's fatherhood isn't a metaphor, human fatherhood is. It is the human fathers who fall short of being perfect fathers because they're human.
I mean, yes, this is in part what the final quote of the video (from the catechism) points to, that God is the archetype from which all parents find their meaning, but calling God "father" is still a metaphor. It still applies an understanding of a human experience that is partially true and partially not true to God.
Respectfully, I think I do not need an explanation for every question I may have. God is God, the Creator, the Holy and Almighty, above all knowledge or science. Praise and Glory to God!
I love this man's videos. I grew up as a fundamentalist Christian (meaning to take everything in the Bible as literally, & the creation story as again - literal) after growing out of that thinking, I enjoy hearing information about God that is exciting and new to me.
Too bad you think that it is just "fundamentalist" Christians who take the creation story literally. I guess you'd have to consider almost all of the church fathers as fundamentalist too.
We need to focus on "CHRIST" and be careful not to downplay the truth. The BIBLE is the word of GOD, JESUS is answer to all of our questions. PRIDE is very dangerous to our SOUL!!
Yes, and as I said (and as I quoted directly from the Catechism) that is an analogy to speak of God. God is father in one sense, but God is also NOT father in another sense. Our language will always break down at some point and we need to recognize its limitations. God is *like* a father, but is not a father like our human, male fathers are.
There is one image that helped me a lot to understand this mystery: Rembrandt: Return of the Prodigal Son! If you look at the details of the image, the hands of the Father specifically, one is strong as a male hand, the other one looks more gentle, as the Mother's hand. We are so limited in our comprehension that even God the Father wants to explain himself(when he doesn't have to and we don't deserve it, but still He does it) with this kind of video that you have work on or the many other ways, as that beautiful piece of art that I mentioned. Thank you Br. Casey for teaching us from the roots, how can we spread the Word of God if we don't know who He is first!!!
Praise God. I mean, I think God does need to and we do deserve an explanation of some sort, not because of something we did but because of who he is and because of Pure Logic. If we say this, then we can also say God doesn't need to explain anything to us, which would then cause us to become irrational beings like animals e.g. Imagine no ten commandments, he clearly had to explain that to us or we will have no moral law and then would it be our fault if we sinned, Ik it isn't God's fault but it certainly would not be our fault as we don't have the moral Law.I think there is a line where we say God doesn't have to. I'm only saying this to prevent any thing which don't make sense. Like for e.g. Christ died for us and we don't deserve his mercy and he doesn't need to die but at the same time this could lead us to think why on Earth he did die. He could easily have just erased sin with a snap of his fingers. We see clearly it is because God is absolute JUSTICE, HOLINESS, LOVE, MERCY. You can't really say he doesn't have to because then why did he? It's like saying I don't have to clean the house. If you don't need to then don't , if you need to then do. He kinda had to but we don't deserve it sounds more accurate. I'm not sure but this is a tough topic. I might have made some errors but this is a topic beyond me. It doesn't seem to make sense to say he doesn't have to, otherwise then we are also saying it's a useless act because it is not needed. The more accurate way is to say he doesn't have to because of what we did but because he had to because of who he is That is LOVE. Love surpassing Time, space infinity. etc. Love which is a total selflessness. God Bless. Praise God.
This was a great video. A lot christians try to humanize God too much. God Most high is a divine intelligence beyond human comprehension. But just experiencing a portion of the Most High is better than anything else we can experience. : )
splashpont I’ve never heard of this. Is there an external reference you can make of this rule? Iconography existed very early in the Church, and God the Father was frequently portrayed in it. And I disagree, I think it’s a horrible rule. We are visual people, and God revealed Himself as a Father, so depicting Him in icons has helped us to grasp the concept of God as our Father. No problem there
Before the creation of Eve, there was really no gender. Afterwards, The whole concept of gender came into existence, and “male” became thought of as the “original” gender (though man & women are created equal). And when thinking about God, people tend to refer to Yahweh as HE.
I very much appreciate this video. I've been struggling with some things lately and this really helped me to see what I needed to see. "Seek and ye shall find." Praise Yah.
thank you thank you thank you, this helped me so much on my faith journey. I felt this huge sense of relief when you said "we risk making an idol in our imagination" I could not have put my personal struggle into better words than this. Ive been searching for the words, thank you so much.
I like the book The color of water when it talks about what color is God. So when someone says to me is God male or female or black or white or whatever I always say he's the color of water that he has no color he has no gender.
There is a distinction to be made here: all of the biblical references you make where God is seen as a mother figure say “like a mother.” God compares Himself to a mother who cares for her young- He does not say “I am your Mother.” He doesn’t reveal Himself as a mother, but gives us these analogies to help us understand that He cares for us in that way. He does, countless times, reveal Himself as Father. The fullness of God revealed to us, Jesus Christ, came as a man, and Jesus never referred to His mother, He referred countless times to “the Father.” No language to describe God is perfect, but if calling God anything but Father was unsatisfactory, then surely Jesus Himself would’ve used some non-male pronouns. But God wished to reveal Himself to us in a primarily masculine way, and in the words of Christ, God refers to Himself only with masculine pronouns. If that is good enough for Him, it is good enough for us. And it has been for the entire history of the Church and will continue to be until He comes back to save us. While it’s important to make the distinction that God isn’t a man, and that He isn’t only masculine, we must also remember that God essentially gave Himself masculine pronouns. To use the language of the popular culture, God has “preferred pronouns”, and we ought to accept that with humility.
It makes sense to me that "God is not a guy" .... or human-like, even. We live in a vast Universe ... countless worlds, myriad forms of intelligent life. God must be greater than all of this, surely! "Now you are dealing with a God of all the universes and Creation beyond the universes, a God so great that your mind can only fall down in praise. Not a human God. Not a God that you create in your own imagination, but a God that you must experience at a deeper level, beneath and beyond the limits of your surface mind." ~ NewMessage org
Are you kidding me there is no way that Jesus prefer to his father as father but it was a woman are you kidding me wish in one hand and ship in the other and see which 1 fills up 1st stop this equality O ship it
2 there is nothing equal at all when it comes to the sexus you need to be proud of the things that men can't do that you can do and the things that men can do we should be proud of everyone keeps talking about this equality deal and it will never happen the reason why is because we are built different physically
@@ampcodrive9009 physicals are pretty barbaric to be a limiter for any amount of equality. It does not matter what you can bench press in today's world and it never mattered in God's eyes. In any sense this means nothing because god is not a man. If I was so pathetic a man as to say nobody can not think of God as a man I would be pretty insecure indeed. If someone refuses pronouns for God I commend them.
This is on the philosophical side. The cool thing about being a Catholic is: common sense. From the beginning it was recognized we are not just minds without bodies, like some creepy disembodied spirit. That is why we use images and physical things so much in our tradition. Holy water, incense, stain-glass windows [from a time when people could not read and learned from pictures], statues, songs, candles, standing, sitting, sign of the cross, reading of the word, communion, and on and on. Men and women of flesh and blood. Cheers.
I appreciate how respectfully you talk about the subject but I can see how people get confused and maybe even let into heresy but thank you nonetheless for explaining it in a way the common man can understand
For me, I feel like we think in terms like these, man and woman, because our minds are smart enough or "strong" enough to understand a being beyond having a gender like God.
Yes, and as I said (and as I quoted directly from the Catechism) that is an analogy to speak of God. God is father in one sense, but God is also NOT father in another sense. Our language will always break down at some point and we need to recognize its limitations. God is like a father, but is not a father like our human, male fathers are.
As an example of HOW the trinity could work: imagine a creature that exists in four dimensions a three dimensional slice of it might appear to be three separate entities. But they are all part of the same thing in a higher dimension.
Zechariah 12:10 KJV "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" + Revelation 1:7-8 KJV "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."
This is the difference between Christianity and other "monotheistic" religion. All the other religions just say God is one and that's all. But in Christianity, it's confusing to understand, because it's about God. It is something that, is not easily understandable with our human brain. If God were that easy to understand, people would not be curious about meeting God
"That message and painting's describe of Sister Saint Faustina is I believed of Jesus Christ the divine's directions and emphasization of his Identity amen".🙏
Loved the video, and have no disagreement with what you presented! However, I can't help recalling the vitriol arguments presented against this by fellow Franciscan, Mother Angelica. She particularly took issue with inclusive language. I don't think it could be argued that she did not believe the catechism. Have you ever thought of exploring the debate, that exists within the Church, even within your own order? Perhaps addressing oppossing positions?
I think Mother Angelica's beef was with things like switching the Our Father to Our Mother, and stuff like that, which I totally agree with. But no doubt Mother Angelica was very aware of the Psalm that describes the Lord as a mother hen (or quail) gathering her chicks under her wings, because she had to recite it regularly in the Office.
I think that God does not take on a human form. They are just a spirit. Of course, we use words like father and him because we are mere humans so we are not capable of understanding what God is.
Jesus never referred to the 1st person of the Trinity as "Mother." He always called God "Father" and even "Abba" "Daddy." I'm going to go with the Son of God on this one.
Yes, and as I said (and as I quoted directly from the Catechism) that is an analogy to speak of God. God is father in one sense, but God is also NOT father in another sense. Our language will always break down at some point and we need to recognize its limitations. God is like a father, but is not a father like our human, male fathers are.
@@BreakingInTheHabit God is more than an earthly father , please see this exegesis of Holy Gather. *POPE FRANCIS* *"Calling him 'Abba' is something much more intimate and moving than calling God 'Father.' That's why, some suggested translating this Aramaic word to 'Dad' or 'Daddy.' Instead of saying 'Our Father,' say, 'Dad.' We keep saying 'Our Father,' but in our hearts we are invited to say 'dad.' It's to have a relationship with God, like a child has with his or her father."* www.romereports.com/en/2019/01/16/pope-explains-god-is-a-tender-father-not-a-terrible-tyrant/
@mikechet49 You may want to go with the "TRUTH" on this one. (And consider, remember, research, that NOT ONE WOMAN participated in the putting together of the "canon") 1) Jesus is the "ONLY begotten son of god" - and therefore he ALONE has the right to call god "father" - he ALONE is related to him. (keep reading .... I know what you're thinking, it's in #4 below). 2) It is self-evident in nature that everyone has a mother, but not everyone has a father. (It is called partheno-genesis, partheno-carpy, -born of a "virgin" - "partheno" - "parthenon".) Women/virgins were burned as "witches" for becoming pregnant without intercourse with males, parthenogenetic births in humans are more common than twin births even today after they have been slaughtered. Google it. "parthenogenetic.... squash, turkeys, cucumbers...." 3) ALL our physical life is traced through our mitochondria ONLY thru our mother(s) back to ONE MOTHER, not one "father". There is an expression: "Eve, the mother of all living." 4) The Bible itself tells us that god is NOT OUR PARENT, NO RELATION to us whatsoever. That Jesus is NOT our brother. ("He is the ONLY-begotten son") "You are given a spirit of ADOPTION by which you can cry abba/father". This CLEARLY states that we can only call "god" our "father" thru ADOPTION and that he is NO RELATION to us. Proof = it is IMPOSSIBLE to "adopt" your own child. WE ARE NOT RELATED TO GOD THE FATHER. The Bible states that as a FACT that cannot be argued. 5) So since we DO exist and since our mitochondria traces back to ONE mother - who is the "Mother of all living", and since the Bible tells us god is NOT our father, NOT our parent, NO relation, then we can be CERTAIN that our TRUE PARENT / RELATION / SOURCE OF LIFE is a single, virgin, (partheno-carpic) mother and NOT a single father. 6) Merlin Stone's book "When God Was A Woman" traces the efforts of a tribe of mysogynistic males to stamp out ALL RECORD of any releation to a mother as the source of life and to exterminate all peoples who worship "the queen of heaven" or any mother as parent. 7) You can note in any geneology in the Bible ad nauseum that 1) ONLY males are recorded, no fe-MALES, no wo-men existed? - and 2) the males recorded are the sons only of MEN, ('ben' so and so) they have NO MOTHERS, NO MOTHERS are listed in any of the geneologies. IF wo-MEN are even 'implied" to have existed - they are "lot's wife" or "noah's wife". NO NAME, NOT HUMAN? NOT IMPORTANT? WHY? Wipe out, erase, blot out of the "book" the existence, power and truth of the source of all living (Eve - the mother of all living). Yet record "son of a man" (Ben so and so) while at the same time stating that "god" is a MAN/MALE/FATHER - NOT mother, but NOT our relative, NOT our parent, no man is BEN-God. NO MAN is related to god/male. 8) One can now "argue" - "aha - then it was "woman" who IMPRISONED US in our prison-bodies." Really? Are we still using the Bible as "Evidence"? The Bible states two interesting "facts": 1) our bodies are created in the image of god ("god" is our Mother - our bodies are descended ONLY from a mother, not a father and god the father is NO RELATION to us (adopted) so our bodies are not in/from HIS image/genes) and 2) the Bible states that our bodies are TEMPLES not PRISONS. It promises the "resurrection of the body", the "valley of dry bones", etc. Not that our bodies are PRISONS. 9) The Bible states that the "Holy Spirit" for which our Bodies are "TEMPLES" is feminine - El Shaddai - teeth, teats and hand (sh+d+yod) - breast with suckling child - sophia, wisdom, the mother bear .... So not only the TEMPLE (body) is from our Mother (mitochondria) and NO relation to god/male, but the "Spirit" (wisdom) which inhabits it is feminine/from our mother - Sophia, El Shaddai, etc. SO - our bodies are TEMPLES which are passed down to us from our first MOTHER and are HER image - since god is NOT our father/parent/relation. So, yes, according to the Bible, Jesus ALONE could call God "FATHER". BUT, according to the Bible, we CANNOT call God "Father" because he is NOT our father. SOLUTION: "You are given a spirit of ADOPTION by which you can say abba/father" to one who is NOT your Father, NO relation - or "he" couldn't "adopt" you. At "best", the Bible says you can be / are ADOPTED by a male god to whom you are NO relation. NOT BEGOTTEN of a FATHER-god. FATHERLESS. THEREFORE - (as is self-evident) you are Born/Begotten of, related to a virgin-mother - begetter not creator. Born, not "built". "Is it not written in 'your law' that YOU ARE GODS?" But you are not children-gods of god the "father" - he is NO RELATION. Hmmmmmmm....................
Erin Owl you are obviously some kind of angry feminist bordering on hysteria. When Jesus was asked by the apostles how they should pray, he said “OUR Father”. He also said to go into your inner chamber and pray to “YOUR Father.” God is our Father in the sense that all things eminate from him. We can call God our Father as Jesus instructed us to. All your other comments about lineage is nonsense. All human beings, except Adam, Eve and Jesus had a human father. Since women had no legal status in biblical times, it made total sense to record the lineage from father to son. If you have a problem with how Scripture was recorded and formulated, I suggest you take that up with the Lord.
Yes, and as I said (and as I quoted directly from the Catechism) that is an analogy to speak of God. God is father in one sense, but God is also NOT father in another sense. Our language will always break down at some point and we need to recognize its limitations. God is like a father, but is not a father like our human, male fathers are.
Another related side topic: one of my professions is working as a psychotherapist. I have had many clients for whom addressing God as a male is extremely traumatizing due to abuse suffered from significant males, to include fathers and ministers of various faith traditions. Allowing for Divine gender pronoun wiggle room provides therapeutic space for psycho-spiritual healing, without the client feeling like they need to toss God out altogether.
Mother Angelica said she had difficulty going to God because her father abandoned her and her mother when she was quite young. She came to faith through Our Blessed Mother.
@@kimfleury That worked for her, and I suspect for many. But for many more the fact that Mary isn't God makes this perspective unhelpful, and doesn't address the trauma relationship with maleness , power and control, and gender projections and constructs relating to what otherwise aught to be a comforting presence in times of distress.
Friar Kipp that seems to be the fault of bad theology or a great misunderstanding of theology. It is one thing to address the damaging effects of the image of God as a literal man and another to now say god must be a woman because at the end of the day it’s all about feeling powerful. You’re in the wrong religion if you believe this. Power is obtained through humility, chastity, modesty, etc. What do you say to people who leave the church because of her view on priests? Do we change our theology to people don’t toss God out? What about people who leave because of abortion? Or chastity? Do we in the end just toss God out all together so people don’t have to worry about “tossing god out”? The answer isn’t to stop viewing God as father. It is to help people understand what that means.
@@sffsf81 Self righteousness, judgment, concrete thinking, name calling, and a clear lack of formal education does not make you right. Most mainstream orthodox theologies, both historically and currently, recognize God as having no gender, pronouns being a function of language structure limitations and historical bias. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 239, in reference to God: "God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God."
A few days ago, I was reading a RC Bible Diary for Eastern Africa which has a passage about creation in which the passage clearly and unambiguously stated that God said let us create man in our image, and having created him and seeing that he was lonely created for him a partner, by putting the man in a deep sleep and taking a rib to create for him a partner who the man named woman for out him she had been created, which version I remember from my Sunday school days when the story was told us. This then made me look at the bibles I have in the house as well as a number online where I then noticed (which I'd never done before) that all the latest editions have shortened v.27 to simply 'So God created man in His own image; male and female He created them"(NIV and RSV) or "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (KJV). I would argue that if I take the first and KJV versions, God is undoubtedly a man, albeit with feminine qualities like all males in much the same way as all females have masculine qualities, while the NIV and RSV would leave that question open. Once during what we call a teaching session in my local church when some raised the issue of our liturgy not being all inclusive and couldn't we use gender sensitive words, leading one our priests now adding woman, wherever there is man in our liturgy, our Precentor recommended that those who were perturbed should take the word man in our liturgy and liturgical books to be short for mankind. I would be grateful for your views either publicly or privately. I do not wish to start a debate for whether or not God is a man, He is still God.
I don’t mean this as a put down or snide remark, but I truly feel sorry for you. I can’t imagine what it must be like to think that, to think that there is no God, no purpose for all of creation. I really don’t know what else to say to your comment but “no, absolutely not.” God is not my personal conception. What I say and know about God is grounded in thousands of years of tradition, is philosophically logical, communally tested, and personally felt.
Sorry, I thought you were saying God is not a God but I rewind the video and you were actually saying God is not a Guy. I was so alarmed thinking that you were saying God is not a God. What a relief when you were actually saying God is not a Guy.
We humans tend to need to make things so complicated. We tie ourselves up into knots over issues like this even while forgetting the weightier matters, such as justice, mercy, peace, and love.
If I may challenge you on this, I think someone who isn’t a white male sees this as precisely an issue of justice. When God is portrayed like you, there’s no problem. But what if God is not portrayed like you and it is used by some to say (implicitly or explicitly) that you are “less than.” The way we talk about and imagine God is not a trivial issue separate from justice. It is the foundation from which justice flows.
Fr. Casey if like you said, the depiction of God as man can lead to errors in our thinking, than does it suffice to say that it is therefore a sin to depict God(the Father) as man or to depict God at all?
In that last segment summarising the points of the video the audio was not right for me. It sounds like a faint jingle of bells and scratching. It may have just been my device but thought if other people noticed it then you may want to check it. I don't think the sound was meant to be there, would be a bit awkward if it was. Great video though, helps me learn more about my faith, which is of course awesome.
Thank you for the explanation, Brother Casey. I watched your videos these recent days to help me understand Catholicism more. Here a question, if God is neither male nor female, because God is a Holy One, the Creator of all, what about the angels? Are they same with God? I mean, are they neither male or female?
I'm an old-fashioned stickler for precision in language: Language has gender. Humans, animals and plants have a sex. I blame Mark Twain for beginning the confusion when he wrote, "German is a language in which a turnip has a sex but a young woman doesn't." 🤦♀️😄
Thank you, this video is very interesting, as I had known little about this before. I'd just assumed God was a man/masculine in nature. Boy was I wrong (sorta)
My oh my! I just can't wait until we change the Lord's Prayer to the Lady's Prayer and pray "Our Mother Who Art in Heaven hallowed to be her name." Does that mean that Jesus clould return as a transgender or non-binary? Yabba dabba doo! Thanks, Father Casey! Now it's time for a female pope! Ready? ;) What about Mary impregnated by the Holy Spirit? Hmmm ... too masculine there too. How about rewriting the Annunciation story so that St Joseph is immaculately conceived without sin and he could impregnate God the Mother to make a transgendered Jesus? Father Casey! Brother, you are on a roll. Keep going, man! Oops, I guess I should have said, "Sister, you are on a roll! Keep going, woman!". Gotta keep those feminists happy! :) :) :). Hey, you could even consider becoming a transgendered priest into a nun and be a priestess. The neo-theological joys are unlimited!
Ezekiel 1-26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
You raise some very salient points, Fr. Casey, but you miss one key aspect. ALL of the societies that have a god (or god-like being) are male-dominated. That is true even today--and even in the Catholic Church. Even in mainstream society, leadership is seen as a "male" function and nurturing is seen as a "female" function. And yet I know fathers who are just as nurturing as any mother--and I know mothers who are just as good leaders as any father. So I don't think it's so much a matter of God being depicted as a man but is more a matter of social perception through the ages of who and what we perceive that God "should" be. I think that for too long we have made God in our image--and have forgotten that God made us in GOD's image--male and female. (Genesis 1:26-27)
To me the most overlooked portion of this is the Trinitarian aspect. Is it possible to think based on biblical tradition that in a very direct way the human male is created in a new relationship analogical to the Father in the Trinity and the human female is analogous to the beloved Son who is the perfect image of the Father? The Trinity certainly can't be described as the Father / Mother Son/ daughter, and Holy Spirit
Exodus 3:14 KJV "And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you." + Philippians 2:7 KJV "But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" + John 8:58 KJV "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." [JESUS IS JEHOVAH THE FATHER WHICH IS HOLY AND IS A SPIRIT/GHOST, REBUKE ME IF YOU CAN AND IF I AM WRONG.]
God is masculine by nature… order, structure, wrath, and to the furthest extent tyranny. Chaos, liberty, multiplicity, those are feminine traits that apply to God only in juxtaposition. Of course God has feminine aspects, but it’s not arbitrary that we say ‘He’ Edit: and to be clear I’m NOT telling you, Fr. Casey, like I know more lol … just adding 2 cents
So here are my takeaways. 1. We are trying to talk about an unlimited entity with our limited language. 2. We are trying to understand an unlimited entity through our own limited human experience. 3. God is, in the truest sense of the word, nonbinary. 4. Regardless of your feelings about using the word to talk about individual human beings, when you're talking about a trinitarian God, "they" is a perfectly reasonable pronoun. 5. Jesus taught us to call God "Father" but the Aramaic word he used, "Abba" is more accurately translated "daddy." How glorious to think about our relationship with God in such intimate terms.
Bro Casey, what translation of the Bible are those verses from? I know Catholic Bibles are slightly different from Protestant and Restorationist editions but I still found more than one English version of the Catholic Bible.
I get god is man and women need to fall on their knees and woship all men. I guess you are not aware that the bible was written by men who hated women.
Father is not a metaphor like the mother bear or women in labor examples you cite. It is a direct revelation of the relationship the Father has with the Son (and us), as revealed by the Son Himself. It is correct to say that the Father is not ontologically a "male", but he is revealed to us explicitly as a masculine figure and we should accept that. To say that a few metaphors are "equally valid" to the revealed truth of the incarnate Son is erroneous
As I said (and as I quoted directly from the Catechism) that is an analogy to speak of God. God is father in one sense, but God is also NOT father in another sense. Our language will always break down at some point and we need to recognize its limitations. God is like a father, but is not a father like our human, male fathers are.
@@BreakingInTheHabit But that's still not an accurate presentation of what God is. I said specifically in my comment that God is not an ontological male who is our literal human father. But Jesus is not calling him Abba metaphorically or analogically like the example of the mother bear or the woman crying out in labor pains. Those are simply not equal but different descriptions of God. One is a revealed relational status and the other is a metaphor of God's actions. God is not a male literal father, but his relationship to us and His Son is explicitly masculine and paternal as revealed by the Son.
But I think you're missing the bigger point: all language is analogical. Yes, he might have said it, and yes, he might have had specific meaning to that, but that doesn't make God any more masculine than feminine. It just doesn't make sense with our philosophical understanding of God. Further, as the Catechism passage that I quoted says, it is appropriate to describe God in terms of motherhood, that these terms both capture a piece of who God is, but both, in another sense, fail to capture who God is.
@@BreakingInTheHabit You're still ignoring the fact that you placed a few scattered and inconsistent metaphors for God's *actions* on the same level as the revealed relational status the Son and we have with Him. You're using "God is not a human man" and "God's actions are analogically compared to those of feminine creatures" to present the conclusion that we can, thus, disregard the fundamental masculine (not "male") nature of God the Father's relationship. You're catechism quote also does not say anything about our relationship to God, just God's nature. Sure, as I've said, God is not an ontological male or female, mother or father. But He is specifically a Father and not a mother to us. He is the source and perfection of Motherhood, but that is not what He is to us. That does not come from the "language of human experience", but rather the revealed truth of His Son.
I would just have to continue to push you on that insistence: what does it even mean to be father? Can a woman be a father? Of course not. A father is a male. So if you're saying that God is not ontologically male, then there is something about the title Father for God that cannot be entirely true. You do not hear me advocating for calling God mother in this video. All I say in this video is that God is not gendered, and we must be careful how tightly we clutch to these words. Your insistence (and defensiveness) on this issue somewhat proves my point. Why must that title be held to so closely? Given what we say philosophically, might we have slipped into using an idol?
God is human in form (sinless) not a human in form(sinful). We are created in God's image so, we cannot jump into a conclusion that their is another imaginary image God reffered to. Only human. The answer in determining of what is the form of God was already given during the creation.Let us make man in our own image. Gods image is man(sinless) and mans sinless image is God.
For me, I find that male pronouns fit best because the world of creatures does not emanate from Him as offspring is born of a mother, and so we do not use maternal pronouns, rather, paternal ones. Further, male is to female as act is to potency and as form is to matter and as soul is to body, so it is fitting to name God who is pure actuality itself, pure form, and pure spirit according to masculine pronouns
Yes, that is one way of thinking about it, analogously, but as I said (and as I quoted directly from the Catechism) analogies are always partially true and partially false. God is father in one sense, but God is also NOT father in another sense. Our language will always break down at some point and we need to recognize its limitations. God is like a father, but is not a father like our human, male fathers are.
@Breaking In The Habit I was reciting the nicene Creed at Mass today and one of the classes in the nicene Creed is "born of the father before all ages" their is clause refers to Jesus, but in theology class i have been taught about the Arian heresy and this sounds similar . I know that God did not create Jesus but why does the nicene Creed say " born of the father before all ages" could you please clear this up I am confused
The reason that we use the language "father" and "son" is because it captures the sense that the first person is the one who sends and the second person is the one who is sent. There is a constant and eternal procession of the one from the other. It is not that God "creates" Jesus out of something other than God, but that Jesus is the same "substance" as the the Father, both being God, but their "roles," in a sense, are different. Both are coeternal with the Holy Spirit, all three are of the same substance, and none are created.
3:42 I don't mean to be that guy who's super scrupulous, but it doesn't make sense to recognize the divine nature as " the nature that has existed for all eternity", since the Jesus's human nature has also existed for all eternity. If this were not the case, then Jesus's human nature is separate from his divine nature, and thus we find ourselves believing in the Nestorian heresy.
Great video. I believe there are many more references both metaphorically and linguistically to the feminine nature of God, in the Old Testament. Another thought, it was challenging enough for the Messiah to arrive with subversive ideas as a male in a patriarchal society. Imagine if the Messiah came as a female in a patriarchal society? Logistically challenging to say the least.
@@kimfleury Smarter? No. Wiser? Most certainly. Thanks to feminism our daughters can vote, choose nearly any profession to pursue, including priesthood in some denomination's, get equal pay for equal work, run for president, assert their gifts and intelligence in a meaningful way in a world now thusly enriched, and less restricted by abusive gender role expectations defined by mere cultural constructs.
@@lr489 if one is told by Paul that it was Eve that first sinned not Adam. So cover your heads ladys. That is demeaning not valuing. And I think it is easy to say from a man's perspective look we get the roles of leadership but you get to be mothers. (We of course are also fathers so this equality means almost nothing besides you suffer more in child birth). I think limiting a woman and having no limitations on man does not in any way say one is equal. I think telling anyone who is given far less attention, shamed and limited in roles, and missing in the Holy Trinity that they are equal means Jack all. It means nothing to put all of these devaluing verses and then just state that they are valued the same. Show where in practice where a man is limited in his roles. You could say "do not cover your head for you are like Jesus" but I dont think that's exactly a humbling request. The Bible is sexist. As someone trying to grapple with God this problem is substantial to me
@@partydean17 Men’s “role” is one that makes all the laws and rules. I find that to be a pretty big problem. When women are not allowed to have any executive power or interpretive power, things are going to be necessarily skewed and biased.
God made men physicallly stronger most of the time,and its not just men.Its all the male animals such as Lions too. God made man and woman together to be equal however in all other ways.The sinfulness of men has tried to usurp women's rights however and they are very aggressive and war like often times,and so men are really given a bad image to themselves and to God. God has placed most of His tender loving spirit in women more than in most men,and that is a plus for women. Men can get in touch with the feminine tender side of God when they are more gentle and kind. God is not physically male although mormons say HE is, But He is not with body yet with Spirit. He chose to be titled as a male as Father and Son because the symbol of the seed giver is the male,and all male beings give the seed to the egg being the mother earth,and so she is not worshipped but He is. And HE is above the earth.
Matthew 7:15-20 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them Having the “image” or “likeness” of God means, in the simplest terms, that we were made to resemble God. Adam did not resemble God in the sense of God’s having flesh and blood. Scripture says that “God is spirit” (John 4:24) and therefore exists without a body. However, Adam’s body did mirror the life of God insofar as it was created in perfect health and was not subject to death. We know that God is a spiritual being and does not possess physical characteristics. This does not limit, however, how God may choose to reveal Himself to humanity. Scripture contains all the revelation God gave to humanity about Himself, and so it is the only objective source of information about God. In looking at what Scripture tells us, there are several observations of evidence about the form in which God revealed Himself to humanity. Scripture contains approximately 170 references to God as the “Father.” By necessity, one cannot be a father unless one is male. If God had chosen to be revealed to man in a female form, then the word “mother” would have occurred in these places, not “father.” In the Old and New Testaments, masculine pronouns are used over and over again in reference to God. Jesus Christ referred to God as the Father several times and in other cases used masculine pronouns in reference to God. In the Gospels alone, Christ uses the term “Father” in direct reference to God nearly 160 times. Of particular interest is Christ’s statement in John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Obviously, Jesus Christ came in the form of a human man to die on the cross as payment for the sins of the world. Like God the Father, Jesus was revealed to humanity in a male form. Scripture records numerous other instances where Christ utilized masculine nouns and pronouns in reference to God. The New Testament Epistles (from Acts to Revelation) also contain nearly 900 verses where the word theos-a masculine noun in the Greek-is used in direct reference to God. In countless references to God in Scripture, there is clearly a consistent pattern of His being referred to with masculine titles. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and start a relationship with Him...for that's the sole reason He came to earth so we would not perish...not to start a religion
God refers to his Mother as the Queen of Heaven. She appears in Revelation with a crown of 12 stars moon under her foot and clothed with the sun. Clothed in light just as Christ had a halo.
@@MerqSeker The Queen of heaven is a pagan false goddess, it has nothing to do with Mary. Mary was the mother of the mortal finite flesh of God, not the mother of the eternal infinite Spirit of God. The woman in Revelation is Israel and the 12 stars are the 12 tribes of Israel.
Look at It this way. A Human is, a Soul, a Body and a Spirit. God is, The Father (God Creator /Soul), The Son "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (God Man / Body) and The Holy Spirit (God Faith / Spirit)
Your talk obscures the fact that humans are created in such a way as to have clear differences as male and female. There is a fundamental reason this was done. Your discussion is not complete and in fact will not be properly understood. In addition your talk will facilitate misunderstandings and issues. Ultimately your talk helps lots of trouble. I am in a parish where you talk is often mentioned and lived in ways that undermine. In consequence ... the bishop is mad as hell.
I'm sorry to hear you feel this way. I do not believe that I have said anything that isn't directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church or from respected theologians and saints. Sometimes our faith is complicated, and while the easy answer sits better with us, we are challenged to go a little deeper.
I’ve been wrestling with a similar dilemma lately, specifically my exclusive image of Christ as a 1st century middle easterner. Sure, he was WHEN he became man but is he still that now and is that the only imagery of Christ that we should have of him in our lives today? I dont know what other imagery i could use but lately i have had the feeling that the traditional prevailing image of Christ seperates me from him a bit and seeing Christ only as a 1st century middle easterner sometimes messes with my sense of current relevence. If Christ appeared to me now, when he appears at the second coming is that what he will look like? But if I dont imagine Jesus as sitting next to me in a beard and robes, how else could i visualize him?
Remember that Jesus is the least of us. Those disenfranchised. The meek. The helpless and the oppressed. This is Jesus when you need to visualize him. Praise God he was a bearded middle eastern man but now he is so much more
His mother was The Queen of Heaven, Mary. Just remember that when Patriarchy took over the images of women as deities were smashed. While Constantinople was attacking Greece, the Greeks were debating over whether women should continue to be depicted as angels. And as the smashed the artifacts and burned women as witches they forgot to burn the two female angels on the Ark of The Covenant.
Fr, there is no point trying to deliberate in this topic , it's very obvious, God as we know and revealed to us, by the son , our Lord Jesus Christ is masculine. Jesus also said, to have seen me it's too have seen the Fr. Again, let us creat man in our own image and likeness. If you teach that gender isn't important, what have you too teach about women ordination.
JS Central No because priests don’t exist because god is depicted as a man. Rather, if God designed the priesthood for women, then there’d be priestesses. But God is not a man or a woman.m and the church is aware and have always been aware of this. So it wouldn’t matter.
