[Wuli]

The fact that human beings were created in the image and likeness of God, male and female He created them, tells us that both maleness and femaleness are necessary for humans fully to exemplify the image of God. However, God is not bound by our limited conceptions of “male,” “female,” or even “person.” I would agree. And I would disagree with the writer, because I think I am in disagreement with what I believe are his motives - to encourage people to think of G-d as feminine (as well as masculine. But, given the true mystery of G-d that we can not even dare to imagine, wouldn't it be better to think of G-d without gender, and thereby not impose our, human, gender values on G-d? Why not think of G-d as G-d, who is, we are also told, above "gender".

[Tax-chick]

Why not think of G-d as G-d, who is, we are also told, above "gender".

One reason would be God's revelation of Himself, through Jesus Christ, as "Father." Clearly the distinction was important enough to Jesus that he used a word with gender (in the grammatical sense) rather than "parent," "ancestor," "progenitor," or another word of neuter gender.

A non-Christian believer in God, of course, would probably not find this point very relevant!