Is God Exclusively a Father?

Faith and Philosophy 13 (2):266-271 (1996)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

William Harper presents five reasons for concluding that God should be referred to exclusively in male terms. To the contrary, I argue that: (1) by devaluating the feminine gender, Harper is guilty of the same reductionist and dichotomous thinking as his protagonists, (2) Harper’s view of God is contrary to “the Biblical example,” and (3) Harper’s position rests on a number of logical confusions. I conclude that Harper’s view should be rejected by both men and women of Christian convictions.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-01-09

Downloads
42 (#330,341)

6 months
4 (#315,466)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Revisiting Gender-Inclusive God-Talk.J. Aaron Simmons & Mason Marshall - 2008 - Philosophy and Theology 20 (1-2):243-263.
Reply to Isham.William Harper - 1998 - Faith and Philosophy 15 (2):223-228.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Theories of Sex Difference.Caroline Whitbeck - 1973 - Philosophical Forum 5 (1):54.
On Calling God ‘Mother’.William Harper - 1994 - Faith and Philosophy 11 (2):290-297.

Add more references