"What are God's 'female characteristics'?"

In Isaiah 66.12-13, it says, "For this is what the Lord says: 'I will extend peace to her like a river,
 and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream;
 you will nurse and be carried on her arm
 and dandled on her knees. As a mother comforts her child,
 so will I comfort you;
 and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.' "

In Hosea 11.1-4, God says that Israel is like a son. "It was I who taught you to walk, taking them by the arms. ... I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love. To them I was like one who lifts a little child to the cheek, and I bent down to feed them."

Jesus, in Mt. 23.37, said, "Jerusalem, ... how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings..."

Those are a few examples.

"Why does he tell women to submit to husbands?"

That's a much longer discussion, but in the same text (Eph. 5.21-33) he tells men and women to submit to each other, and while telling women to submit to men he tells men to self-sacrifice themselves for women to make women Godlike. The "submission" thing is hugely misunderstood. To take it as misogyny is a superficial reading that doesn't hold water with study.

"Since when is a child an extension of its mother's body but not its father's body?"

In the Mesopotamian mythology of Tiamat, she gives birth to several deities, is killed by Marduk, who splits her body in half, and the heavens and the earth are made out of her divided body (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat). That's why I said it's an extension of her body, not his.

You said, "God has no gender. He has male and female "characteristics."

What are God's "female characteristics"?

And if God really has no gender why does he tell women to submit to husbands?

"and she gave birth to the cosmos, and now the cosmos was an extension of her body. One sure-fire way around that kind of nonsense is to call God a "he."

Since when is a child an extension of its mother's body but not its father's body?

The Old Testament was written at a time when mythologies were present in all of the surrounding cultures. As I mentioned, Asherah, Isis, and Tiamat were hyper-sexual creatures, creating the world through their birth fluids, copulating with other gods and with humans, etc. If the Israelites were going to create a god of their own, they would most likely create a god on the model of what they were familiar with. Instead, though, what we learn is that their God is totally different, even quite radical for their day and environment. It's actually more evidence of knowledge from a source other than themselves or other people.

From the Tower of Babel incident (as well as others), we discover that God is greatly concerned that people have an accurate view of him, as opposed to a warped or manufactured one. The Bible teaches in many places that we have to see God as he is, not as we want him to be. It makes sense that God would deliberate try to show the distance and distinctiveness from other gods in revealing himself. Again, it's evidence that the knowledge has come from elsewhere rather than from the people.

Everything you just said reinforces for me that "God" is a construction of man.

For example, "Enabling the birth of Jesus." A God would just magic a baby, male or female would have no bearing on the situation so this idea of Father was strictly created by man. Just as everything else in the Bible.

God has no gender. He has male and female "characteristics" as we humanly define them (power, loving concern, etc.). There are reasons God in the Bible is called "he" rather than "it" and rather than "she."

1. The Bible says God is a personal being, and not just a spiritual force, so to call God "it" sends a truckload of the wrong impressions.

2. "Father" speaks of relationship, and every culture, world-wide, through all of history will "get" that. It speaks mercy, care, love, and provision. It also speaks authority.

3. "Father" avoids the sexual connotations of the female. In many cultures, "God" was a sexual being, image, and concept, and this was to be avoided at all costs. The male imagery (especially in patriarchal societies) avoids the problem that men have as they look at women.

4. "Father" enables the birth of Jesus. The plan from eternity past was that the Redeemer would come from the seed of a woman. Well, you can’t have the imagery or the theology of a woman impregnating a woman. Since Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father, you really can’t have Him as the only begotten Son of the Mother, and Mary. It doesn’t work on so many levels.

5. Most ancient societies had a goddess as the main cult figure (Asherah, Isis, Tiamat, etc.), or at least to complement a male god. If patriarch is responsible for cultures portraying God as male, then we would expect goddess worship to reflect a matriarchal society, or a more egalitarian one. But this is not the case. Many societies devoted to goddess worship remain oppressive toward women.

6. It refers to the internal relationship within the Trinity. If God was a woman, and Jesus was a man, you can just hear what people would be saying about God, and sex, and suddenly we're into all sorts of mythologies and heresies.

7. God's masculine terminology doesn't convey exclusively masculine qualities. What God's masculine qualities exclude, in actuality, is the idea of a distant and impersonal being.

8. It's helpful to think of God as creator as a man, because many ancient mythologies had the creator as a woman, and she gave birth to the cosmos, and now the cosmos was an extension of her body. One sure-fire way around that kind of nonsense is to call God a "he."

This always bothered me. It seems to me that God is male because the church has been run by males and the patriarchal nature of societies past and present demands a masculine authority figure.

If god were indeed real, wouldn't god be an It rather than He? The whole purpose of male/female is sexual reproduction, which as far as I can tell God would have no use for.

Now obviously when you think deeply about the nature of what god might be you probably see past a gender but the presentation of God as He is very pervasive and carries a lot of sexist undertones. Thoughts?