Template:Maintained

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gender studies Start‑class This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Christianity Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Latter Day Saint movement Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

I have removed the following sentences (and corresponding references) from the "Evolutionary Process" section as it gives the false impression that metaphysics is somehow "over" in analytic philosophy and philosophy in general, arguably glossing over and/or ignoring the work done in the past few decades done by Kripke, Putnam, Lewis, Armstrong and many others. They read:

...nor in philosophy. Analytic philosophy widely considers speculative metaphysics to be outside the reach of epistemology and scientific scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T of Locri (talk • contribs) 08:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of "son of God" or "Son of God" is barely relevant to the article, but since Jeffro has raised it again, and the issues do have some circumstantial relationship to the article, I'll make a second brief response here. I trust Jeffro would not argue that "Jesus Christ, son of God" must be correct. In 99% of uses, son is appositional, an atheist describing Christian belief would write, "Jesus Christ, [the] Son of God". It would be possible, though I'd love to see a source attesting it, to say "Jesus Christ, son of God", just as one might say "Adam, son of God" or "David, son of God". Here the intent is "Adam, [a] son of God", the lower case is shorthand for a non-unique representative of a class (I believe Discourse Representation Theory suggests an implicit quantifier is introduced along with a new discourse variable in such constructions). In the same way, the capital is merely shorthand for the definite article in the case of Jesus, who some contend is the unique Son of God (while also being truly a son of God simultaneously). One thing that decieves people in cases like this is English possessive constructions. In Greek and Hebrew (the languages on which theories about Jesus are ultimately dependent), there are different ways of forming the constructions, which make the issue easier to see. Hebrew (typical of Semitic languages generally) uses a construct state in which a chain of modifiers precede a noun in the absolute state. Long chains are possible—"the children of the wives of the advisors of the king" (the last is absolute, the modifiers are construct). Where the absolute noun is definite, the whole chain is definite. B'n Elohim or the Son of God is definite because Elohim God is definite. Circumlocutions make it possible to avoid the implication of definiteness if required. Greek has multiple ways of saying "Son of God" again with different nuances of definiteness—ho tou theou quios (literally, the of-God Son) is a very natural Greek construction, it would use an indefinite particle were it to wish to avoid definiteness in regard to such statements.

I'd be very interested if Jeffro could provide some sources that show usage of Jesus being describe as "son of God" with a lower case "s". Otherwise, whatever he is suggesting regarding English syntax, might be true and I'm just missing his point, but is not particularly relevant, because it is hypothetical. Sources secular or devotional all use the capital, so even if I agreed with Jeffro, we'd be best off dropping it, because no consensus would form in opposition to the strong precedent of sources. What do you say Jeffro? Let sleeping dogs lie? Alastair Haines (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I "raised it again" purely because it seemed to be the only thing that might remotely resemble a basis for your claim that I had argued with the OED (which remains unclear). Insofar as your statement that atheists would capitalise (I've determined that you're also Australian so I'll drop the US spelling here) 'Son of God', I think they would be the least likely to do so.

To clarify my position on this so there is no doubt... if using the phrase as a title ('[Jesus Christ,] [the] Son of God'), it would indeed properly be capitalised. In a statement such as 'Jesus was the son of God' in the same manner as 'Albert Einstein was the son of Hermann Einstein', it would be proper to use 'son', though 'Jesus was the Son of God' would be correct in the manner of 'Charles is the Prince of Wales'. No statement herein should be inferred as any opinion as to the existence of a god, gods, God, or to any progeny of such entities of any gender, or no gender.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're Australian! He he, drat. Work hard while I'm away mate, 'cause Tim and I are serious about scrutinising things when we return. Hmmm, you're Aussie, that does make it harder to tell you what I really think. ;) Don't drink and drive over the silly season and avagoodweekend! Alastair Haines (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible states (using theism) that God created man in his image, this man being exactly that: a man, only after the men was asleep and a rib was removed was a woman created. Since god created a woman for the man and man was created first, God must be a man, since he created the first being in his image.--72.74.114.109 (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any input on the JCI issues. However, I did notice that the "Polytheism" section sort of describes a form of pantheism. In a nutshell, Polytheism is the belief in many distinct gods, of various genders (including neutral or hermaphroditic - the Norse Loki does gender switching IIRC). They may or may not source from (or really be part of) one older god. Pantheism is the belief that many gods are worshiped separately, but are actually all one. (The reason I haven't stuffed this into the article is that I haven't gone and dug up sources yet.)

But the polytheistic stuff seems somewhat out of place here. Polytheists don't have to ask what gender Thor is, or Diana, or Artemis. Do the non-JCI religions even belong here, or is the article really about "The gender of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions"?

--RavanAsteris (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know I reopened a can of worms, but the way the article reads the non-JCI sections are just after-thoughts or bolt-ons.

--RavanAsteris (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The polytheism section doesn't contain any material about gender at all, so I'm going to be bold and remove it. --Alynna (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's what else was bothering me about it - the section as written had nothing to do with the topic! Thanks for the sanity check. --RavanAsteris (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, all. Just wanted to point out that in the (bestselling?) book, "The Shack", God appears as a woman for most of the book (despite the name "Papa"). Shall I add that to the "Pop Culture" section? Or is a novel not considered Pop Culture? Bpenguin17 (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gender of God's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "britannica":

• From Supreme Being: Britannica 1992 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBritannica1992 (help)
• From God in the Bahá'í Faith: "The Bahá'í Faith". Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1988. ISBN 0852294867.
• From Manifestation of God: "The Bahá'í Faith". Britannica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1988. ISBN 0-85229-486-7.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the AHD's indo european roots appendix states that the root for God is Gheu (ə) -. The root means: To call, invoke. I find it interesting that the other english word from this root is "giddy", as in insane or possessed. So god may be considered more of a verb than a noun, and genderless. hey, its not my research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to have an article about the gender of an imaginary being, where gender is not a relevant concept anyway? 51kwad (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you're right about God being imaginary, WP has numerous articles about imaginary beings, including Mickey Mouse. Would you like to get rid of all of those articles? As for the relevance of concepts of gender to God, that is a topic of serious discussion among people who write about God, as well as those who worship God. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this topic still in discussion? God created male and female within material creation for the purpose of reproduction. Because humans are social beings sex and gender have relationship and social aspects for us. But since God is Spirit there is no need for gender. The use of He in referring to God is a condition of human language. "It" would be inappropriate. In Judaism and Christianity (O.T. and N.T.) God is sometimes called Father as an indication of a profoundly intimate and caring concern for us and our lives. God is above gender.--Margaret9mary (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your belief. Other believers are equally adamant for theirs. Frex:

• Henkel, Mark, God is NOT Female
• Graham, Ike, As I, Myself, KNOW the Spirit, I KNOW that God is NOT "Female"
• Vaniquotes: God is not female

It seems that if God exists, it has chosen not to resolve this dispute. So its gender, for those who care about it, shall remain an issue. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't bring up the subject of God as female--however to clarify. Many languages do not have a pronoun especially for God. So the question is--what pronoun to use? So "He" for God (both capitalized) is often used.

For humans the pronouns used are "he" and "she." "It" is used usually for objects in English, or with pejorative intent (Latin-based languages are different). For a number of centuries references to humans used the terms "man," "men" and "mankind" with the unspoken implication that they included womenkind--their use certainly didn't exclude women. These usages involve the real limitations of human languages.

But the use of He for God doesn't mean that God is a superhuman male. Genesis 1:27 says "God created man in His image....male and female He created them"

Since God is Spirit, does it mean that God created us with souls? The Bible doesn't clarify the point. However Jesus, the Son of God was certainly male in his physical body.

I don't think God is female; the Bible says "God created... male and female." (is this limited to material creation?)--Margaret9mary (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To give a more NPOV this is true only in monotheistic religions--and the article as it stands says this. I think what is frustrating for many women today is that men tend to assume that God is male like them, feel threatened by the idea that God is not male like a human male and shut out any spiritual insights women might have. Jesus listened to women and responded to them (See the Marriage at Cana, Mary and Martha, Mary Magdalene as the first witness to the Resurrection). It's something the early Christian church accepted at first, then soon began to abandon. Why can't men follow Jesus? (I wish I didn't have to express this POV, but men often express a purely masculine POV and eliminate any insights women can contribute.)--Margaret9mary (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all your Bible's authors favored listening to and responding to women. Frex, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." Is it any wonder why so many Christian men are male chauvinists? ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is: Wikipedia does not decide if God has a gender. Wikipedia simply makes an inventory of the notable opinions thereupon, the most notable and widespread being that God is male (whatever male could mean for God/a spirit). We don't take sides in this matter, all such notable opinions are worthy of being mentioned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some examples and citations to flesh out this potentially interesting point. Sadly, I'm not the person to add this information, but as an interested reader, I'd say it lacks clarity and credibility in it's current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cspooner (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This website aims to show that the Catholic Church and the Islam are heresies. Therefore it is not a reliable source anyway one would look at it. It is a highly polemic source instead of being academically descriptive. I have reverted edits based upon carm.org propaganda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a historical, anthropological and sociological sense Christian are the persons/churches who define themselves as Christian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, in the section, "In the Hebrew and Christian Bible" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God#In_the_Hebrew_and_Christian_Bible), the claim is made that Elohim was male and female, and they made man in their image.

On the contrary, nowhere in Genesis is a female identity assigned to YHWH the Father, or to Ha Mashiach the son. In addition, if there was any doubt about the gender of the son, (because we can easily confirm the gender of the Father), we can check John 1:1-4:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with YHWH, and the Word was Elohim. The same [Word] was in the beginning with YHWH." This shows that this "Word" (the second entity in Elohim, also known as the Messiah) was the same individual who was conversing with the Father in Genesis 1:26-27, since it says clearly that "The same was in the beginning with YHWH".

And what gender was this "Word", that was with the Father during the creation? We can continue reading at John 1:3-4: "All things were made by HIM, and without HIM was not anything made that was made. In HIM was life, and the life was the light of all men."

I have taken the liberty to remove the false statement that Genesis 1:26-27 speak of a female Messiah who was with the Father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.15.18 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is original research based upon primary sources, does not beat verifiable information from reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "original research". It is quoting directly from the Bible itself. All other research is "original research", based on the Bible. Quoting from the Scripture is not "research"; it is citation. Saying that citing the Bible is "original research" is the same as saying that citing the constitution is "original research". Calling a secondary article "verifiable information" that has more credibility than the Bible itself is the same as saying that a Law student's thesis is more "verifiable information" than the constitution itself. That is flawed logic. Nomnompuffs (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I just told you is well-established Wikipedia practice. We don't perform original research upon the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc., but instead we trust scholars to perform this analysis for us. Coogan is a top of the food chain Bible scholar. See also WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Torah isn't a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]