DEvolution in America

[HT Reddy]

When I wrote "should", it had nothing to do with what God actually is. It was all about convention and whether to go with it or not.

Yeh well I think you may as well go with convention - it's not like we'll be shocked or anything if you go with she, it's just not what we're used to. You could try to stand up for feminism maybe, but I shouldn't have thought that it's worth it.

[Shryke]

It's just generally used because English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun that doesn't carry other implications.

I'm sure MFC could tell us what the original Hebrew/Greek/etc uses though. That would be interesting.

[Ocean of Notions]

Yeh well I think you may as well go with convention - it's not like we'll be shocked or anything if you go with she, it's just not what we're used to. You could try to stand up for feminism maybe, but I shouldn't have thought that it's worth it.

I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. It was not for "shock". It seems your idea of what I meant is rather over simplified. That's fine. I don't feel like going down this road in this thread.

[HT Reddy]

I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. It was not for "shock". It seems your idea of what I meant is rather over simplified. That's fine. I don't feel like going down this road in this thread.

Ok, apologies. A misttaken assumption. Do you mean that if we think of God as a hypothetical, then he could equally well be he/she?

[Ocean of Notions]

Ok, apologies. A misttaken assumption. Do you mean that if we think of God as a hypothetical, then he could equally well be he/she?

Perhaps how we describe God is says more about ourselves and our cultural framework than what God actually is. If the entity of god(s) does exist, then it (they) exists independent of what we think it is. However, what it is independently almost doesn't matter because we'll never know for sure. What is worth looking at is our individual (or even culturally individual, the idea of God from the point-of-view of a collective) conceptions of what this god may be. Simply, what gendered pronoun we like to use to refer to God already says quite a bit in itself.

[HT Reddy]

Perhaps how we describe God is says more about ourselves and our cultural framework than what God actually is. If the entity of god(s) does exist, then it (they) exists independent of what we think it is. However, what it is independently almost doesn't matter because we'll never know for sure. What is worth looking at is our individual (or even culturally individual, the idea of God from the point-of-view of a collective) conceptions of what this god may be. Simply, what gendered pronoun we like to use to refer to God already says quite a bit in itself.

Well in this case it probably tells us that the ancient Israelites found it much more instinctive to think of their single protector God as male. While that presumably tells us something, I'm not sure it's massively surprising.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

When referring to God, both the Hebrew and the Greek use the masculine forms, but from what I recall, biblical Hebrew lacks a neuter form. Still, when translating about God or other terms, it is highly encouraged to use inclusive language and avoid heavily masculine language. It cannot be helped in some cases. While God may speculatively be above gender distinctions, human beings are not. So the way we use language to talk about God, affects our understanding of God.

ETA: Oceans of Notions has the right of it.

[HT Reddy]

When referring to God, both the Hebrew and the Greek use the masculine forms, but from what I recall, biblical Hebrew lacks a neuter form. Still, when translating about God or other terms, it is highly encouraged to use inclusive language and avoid heavily masculine language. It cannot be helped in some cases. While God may speculatively be above gender distinctions, human beings are not. So the way we use language to talk about God, affects our understanding of God.

Oh yeh I definitely agree here. If I imagine thinking of God as a she or it, that completely changes my thought.

[Galactus]

I should note that when referring to god I deliberately try to use both "he" and "she", varying it a bit. I could even use "it", but that requires a slightly different conception of God.

[Take on Me]

Isn't it about your own personal belief? Politicians and journalists keep pushing this button because they get an immediate reaction from the public. Go with your own beliefs and let it be. You can choose to believe one over the other without declaring jihad on the opposing belief. Some people love to torture themselves by trying to convince everyone else that they indeed have the correct philosophy on life.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

When talking about God I try to avoid pronouns and just write "God". God must, of necessity, transcend mere sexual description.

[El-ahrairah]

When talking about God I try to avoid pronouns and just write "God". God must, of necessity, transcend mere sexual description.

It it true that pronouns can mask meaning from language to language, but why is God very often called, in the original texts, the unambiguously male "Father"? Anyhow if pronouns are used, "she" is always exclusively feminine, and "it" implies really inanimate objects. If "he" is not used the result is all to often grammatical acrobatics. On that line change of words like "men" in liturgies, hymns, etc. irks me to no end.

Going back to the original topic, what do you think of this?

[Dornish]

Going back to the original topic, what do you think of this?

Ludicrous. The comment, if quoted in its entirety, is objectively not anti-christian, but merely anti-creation myth. Further, if the topic were breached in class, a history teacher has the obligation to inform students that there is no historical evidence whatsoever supporting biblical creation, though a more tactful choice of words is certainly desirable.

Thirdly, the idea that someone would be "prohibited from making hostile remarks against religion" in the name of the first amendment is 100% grade A Texas bullshit.

[HT Reddy]

On that line change of words like "men" in liturgies, hymns, etc. irks me to no end.

Etymologically the word man comes from the same route as the word mind and didn't used to denote maleness. I know that it does now, but I personally prefer the idea of trying to make words like mankind, chairman, or even just man non gender-specific again, rather than inventing new words like humankind, chairperson etc. But that's just my opinion and a completely different issue.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

It it true that pronouns can mask meaning from language to language, but why is God very often called, in the original texts, the unambiguously male "Father"? Anyhow if pronouns are used, "she" is always exclusively feminine, and "it" implies really inanimate objects. If "he" is not used the result is all to often grammatical acrobatics. On that line change of words like "men" in liturgies, hymns, etc. irks me to no end.

Because although for the ancient Hebrews and classical Israelites thought that God was above a defined sex, God was predominately envisioned as a male. There are passages in the Bible, however, in which God is compared to a woman, typically in the role of a child-bearing mother. But that does not mean that Jews and Christians should be held to a 1st century CE and earlier language when conceptualizing about God.

[tzanth]

It doesn't really matter - God is above such distinctions. So the convention is to say He, because that is what the Bible says, but it's no big deal I don't think.

If it doesn't matter then why make such distinctions? Why not simply say "God?" By using male gendered pronouns you are making a clear statement that you conceptualize your God as a male gendered entity. To me this says a great deal about you and your world-view.

[HT Reddy]

If it doesn't matter then why make such distinctions? Why not simply say "God?" By using male gendered pronouns you are making a clear statement that you conceptualize your God as a male gendered entity. To me this says a great deal about you and your world-view.

Well only because it could potentially be awkward to say God instead of using a pronoun every time. Just imagine reading asoiaf with all the pronouns replaced by the character's name - it would sound strange. Yes it probably does say to you a lot about my worldview, but all it says to me is that in Christianity as a whole we tend to think of God as male, as the father, and I have had no reason to break convention because it's no big deal to me. If you get more out of it than me, then I'm glad.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Well only because it could potentially be awkward to say God instead of using a pronoun every time. Just imagine reading asoiaf with all the pronouns replaced by the character's name - it would sound strange. Yes it probably does say to you a lot about my worldview, but all it says to me is that in Christianity as a whole we tend to think of God as male, as the father, and I have had no reason to break convention because it's no big deal to me. If you get more out of it than me, then I'm glad.

But it's not as if you are short on other names you can use for God: El, Elohim, YHWH, Adonai, Adonai Elohim, El-Shaddai, El-Olam, El-Elyon, El-Gibor, Asher Ehyeh Asher, Theos, Kurios, etc.

While you may have no problem with conceptually talking about God as male, it certainly is not beneficial to the women in your congregation.

[Shryke]

If it doesn't matter then why make such distinctions? Why not simply say "God?" By using male gendered pronouns you are making a clear statement that you conceptualize your God as a male gendered entity. To me this says a great deal about you and your world-view.

No. Your simply using the English language, which defaults to the male pronoun when the sex of the person is unknown and/or non-existent.

[tzanth]

No. Your simply using the English language, which defaults to the male pronoun when the sex of the person is unknown and/or non-existent.

The decision to use male pronouns as a default is an active decision which is entirely up to the speaker. As mentioned by MFC above there are plenty of other words/names that you could use to describe God. Additionally, you could use the gender neutral "they and their." By choosing to use gendered pronouns you are making an active choice to engender whatever it is that you are discussing. For something as important as God, such engendering has wide-ranging implications and should not simply be waved aside as a trivial technicality.