Why call Him a father at all?
Because we insist on trying to impose a gender on God... the thing
is we must realize that God far exceeds a biological notion such as
that. The notion of gender is to help us understand Him, but
obviously this label is actually too weak a notion.
But having said that, using no terms on God does not help us at
all. It's as good as saying nothing about Him. And trying to be
politically correct does not help at all, except to degenerate any
ideas that He is into terms that everybody can be comfortable with.
It is obvious He is something, and He is also not something else.
Refering to Him as a 'He', hardly means that He has a gender, but
it seems to imply that rather, as C.S. Lewis said, God is such so
powerful and awe inspiring that we are [I]all[i] feminine in
relation to Him. He is always makes the first move, and we can only
respond.
Hence many parts of the way He relates to us we may very well
assign a male notion to, not because He is literally male, and not
also because He is metaphorically male, but simply because He is
[i]trans-male[/I], far more the father, lover, brother, friend then
any man could ever be
and more. Obviously there is a reason He is
referred to as 'He', and I suspect that is a big part of the
notion.
Now this of course by no means suppose that we are forbidden to try
to discover any feminine traits in God, but we cannot do it for the
sake of political correctness lest we destroy the way we should
really understand Him as. It is obvious that God can also mother
and nurture far better then the greatest instincts of any woman,
but to suggest that we should relate to Him as if He was an equal
split of male and female features would be erroneous, not because
He is not that way, but simply because He is beyond that
and it is
in our good to regard Him in masculine notions, lest we not
understand anything at all.
Now on being the Son of God and not a Daughter, yet again it seems
to me that Jesus' function (to humanity say the least) was to be of
that of the returning King, the Prince of Light, the Redeemer. A
lot of the incarnation involved doing things that are male
responsibilities. Could God have chosen a different way to
incarnate and let us understand it by? Perhaps, but He choose this
way for a reason, and these are my plausible speculations
perhaps
if the God-given notion of gender was like the Amazons, it might
have been different. But it's obvious that the issue has to be some
ways, and if it's some ways it's not the other way.
Could he have made the seas purple? Why not, but He choose blue.
Does this mean that purple is inferior to blue?