Why refer to God as "He"?

[DanMRaymond]

dangerdan & Arch & if there's somebody I'm missing:

By referring to Jesus Christ as a "she" you are denying Christianity and mocking it in those very words. You are also making a blatantly false claim and statement. There are so many reasons why the Christian God cannot be referred to as a "she", I could write a multiple page paper on it.

The fact that you find that to be a mockery is quite ridiculous. I invite you to explain since apparently there are so many reasons.

[dangerdan]

A good question.

For others wondering where this topic grew from, it was here.

I was merely using “she” as my gender-neutral singular pronoun and inadvertently offended Greenlight. What are some other Christian thoughts on the issue?


(note – I finally learned how to use those cool url link things….woohoo)

[chrispalasz]

DanMRaymond wrote: The fact that you find that to be a mockery is quite ridiculous. I invite you to explain since apparently there are so many reasons.

Sorry... I already posted a lengthy response. I don't think I'm allowed to copy and paste it into this forum (I think it's against the rules to repeat posts). So you can go here and read the response, then respond to it in this thread to further the discussion. Here's the link to my post:

http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... 0814#10814

On a shorter note:
Christians all refer to God as a He. The Bible refers to God as a He. Jesus Christ is a He. Christianity makes the claim that Jesus Christ is God.

These are all well known facts. If a person wants to discuss the specific religion of Christianity while knowing these facts, how is it not a mockary by referring to God as a "she"?

As a slight adjustment to potwalloper's statement that I was offended: I am not normally offended by such a thing. It has been happening on this debate forum quite frequently. But I feel that when a person is discussing the Christian beleif, they should be as politically correct to the beleif as possible. If you believe in a god and you feel that god is a "she", fine. Feel free to debate that objection. But the Bible refers to God as a "He" and to say there is a large concensus that the Christian God is a "He" is an understatement. I have never met or heard or heard OF a Christian referring to God as "she".

(really? I still don't understand it the URL thing, as you can see. Care to share? )

[potwalloper.]

Quote:
potwalloper wrote: Surely the determination of gender in a human sense depends upon two key factors - genetic make up and genital form.

The use of the term "He" is not in reference to His gender. Otherwise we might use "It" rather than either he or she. In a human sense, you are correct. There are other important factors that play a role in the gender-specific pronoun used in reference to God.

If it is not in reference to "his" gender then what is it referring to?

"He" is a gender-specific pronoun - it refers to the male of the species. When describing god as a "he" your are, by analogy, inferring that it is male or that it has a degree of maleness (eg the popular image of a man in a white beard)

Quote:
potwalloper wrote: I cannot see how this can be extrapolated to some divine being - are you saying that God has male genitalia or male genes?

Jesus was male. Jesus was God. Jesus was a "He". If God had become flesh in the form of a woman... you would have some sort of good excuse to be confused or some sort of grounds to make an argument. But, this isn't the case. With this argument aside (since I know this isn't where you're going with your argument), I'll move on to another point.

I may be wrong but surely Jesus simply appeared in earth in male form. If "he" had appeared as a woman then, bearing in mind the devalued nature of the female position in what was a strongly patriarchal society, nothing that "he" said would have been listened to.

Of course there were only two choices - to appear as a man or a woman. Surely you aren't saying that because he/she/it appeared as a man that this somehow confers a degree of gender differentiation on the christian god per se?

Quote:
potwalloper wrote: If not then surely gender allocation to god depended purely upon the social protocols at the time when biblical stories were being written down?

Surely not. There are specific symbolic and theological purposes to God being referred to as a He, and it is by no human convention that He is a He. God being a He speaks towards Christianity to the very foundation.

So what are these theological principles?

Why is a perceived "male" god so much more relevant than a "female" god?

Why on earth (except for purposes of language and conceptualisation) should god be considered to be anything other than gender neutral?

Quote:
potwalloper wrote: This issue is an important one

This issue is an imporant one. And that is why I object to the use of "she" in reference to God when a person is knowlingly and specifically talking about Christianity... especially if that person seeks to make some sort of point or statement beyond mocking or slandering the religion.

How can the use of a female pronoun mock or slander your religion?

Quote:
potwalloper wrote: the anthrompomorphic view of a male god continues the perceived devaluation of females within society and propogates false views that "maleness" is somehow of greater value than "femaleness".

This is one of the many many exaggerated, abused, and misused concepts that the Bible teaches. Men are not more important than women. Women are not more important than men. Your statement may be true for some other religion, but it is not true at all for Christianity, as it says in Genesis 1:27: So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

If men are not important than women then why is it so important for you to retain the descriptor for god as a male pronoun?

Surely the concept of "man in his own image" referred not to man in a male form but to mankind.

If not are you really saying that god is some sort of giant "man" floating around filling the universe? If so then why isn't the universe shaped like a man? Or is the universe just a part of this omnipresent (giant) man - if so where does our universe sit? In his nose? His beard?

I thought that the whole "in his image" idea was an analogy...

Quote:
potwalloper wrote:Surely any god that lacks physical form must, by definition, be gender neutral. As such they should be referred to as "it". However I cannot see any problem with the use of the female pronoun in these circumstances and cannot see how this in any way mocks or devalues a christian god (unless of course you feel that men are more important than women).

Again, surely not. The gender specific pronoun of "He" is applied to God for reasons beyond the scope of human genetalia.

So what are these reasons?

Most, if not all things that God establishes have symbolic meanings that have been established to show aspects of God or His plan or His nature, and remind us of Him in some way, shape or form. Using the pronoun "she" when talking about the Christian God implies that there is a "he" that is playing a more authoritative role over the "she".

I repeat your logic
"Using the pronoun "he" when talking about the christian god implies that there is a "she" that is playing a more authoratative role over the "he""

Are you really saying that you use the male pronoun when describing god as a means of implying the existence of a greater "she" type god?

In the New Testament, there are parables using genders as representations, the wedding feast for example. Christ is referred to as the Groom and the Church of Christ is referred to as the Bride. They get married and become one. This is a symbolic theological representation, but is very important too. Christ lives and works inside Christians, and all True Christians together function as one body, the Body of Christ. God isn't a "she" if the Church is referred to as a "she".

Surely the whole point of a parable is to facilitate conceptualisation. The use of a gender specific pronoun in such cases is simply due to lexical protocols - use of the wrong gender would make nonsense of the context and therefore nonsense of the parable. That doesn't mean that the gender descriptor applies per se.

Also, God is referred to as the Father. Is your father a "she"? Do you mind if I use the pronoun "she" when referring to your father? You list that you are male. Are you a father? Can I call you a "she"?

You can call my dad a she if you want (I always had my suspicions anyway ) and I don't mind if you refer to me as she. Your references would, however, be grammatically inaccurate due to the gender specificity of our species. I can't see how this can apply to a gender-neutral divine being.

The Bible also states that men were created first, then women. I could also say, then, that referring to God as "she" indicates that there is a "he" that preexisted God: this is, of course, paradoxal nonsense. However, if human genetalia is the only reason you'll accept (which would be unreasonable), see below.

Surely if the creation of mankind was done in a serial fashion then some gender would have had to be created first. Does this confer any meaning as to the gender of god? That would be like saying I fitted the toilet first in my new bathroom and then the bath - therefore I am a toilet (although I'm sure you have your own opinions on that one!)

Quote:
potwalloper wrote: References to Christ (who in the stories was male) should, I agree, have the proper pronoun applied when referring to physical form rather than as a god...

When we're talking about Christianity, what's the difference between talking about God and talking about Christ? Christianity makes the claim that Christ IS God. If you want to incorrectly state that Jesus is a "she", then go ahead and also incorrectly state that God is a "she".

So you are saying that the chosen physical form of christ does confer gender specificity upon god.
Does that mean that satan is both sexes then? He appeared as a snake and snakes can alter gender depending upon environmental factors...

Gospel of John
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

I could go on about this, but I've made my point, as I said I could.

I don't think you have made your point. You have referred to gender-specific references in biblical texts as well as attempted to apply the gender of christ in physical form to god in general terms.

You have not at any time explained how a divine being that does not appear to have any gender-specific characteristics (apart from those conferred by the necessity of language) should be referred to as a "he".

The use of "he" when referring to god does reinforce the concept that men are more important than women no matter how you try to sell it - "god is a man, therefore men are best". Your religion...

[DanMRaymond]

edit: potwalloper got to it before me =)

[chrispalasz]

potwalloper wrote: If it is not in reference to "his" gender then what is it referring to?

I suppose the best way to describe it would be that He is characteristically male. Men and women have different roles to play, and God plays the masculine role, where as Christians play the femanine role with respect to God. With respect to eachother, males play the masculine role and females play the femanine role (obviously).

potwalloper wrote: may be wrong but surely Jesus simply appeared in earth in male form. If "he" had appeared as a woman then, bearing in mind the devalued nature of the female position in what was a strongly patriarchal society, nothing that "he" said would have been listened to.

1) The nature of the female position is not devalued at all, except by non-believers.

2) Many people didn't listen to Him as a male. I don't think being a female would have had any impact at all regarding who would have listened to Him - provided all the prophesies in the OT were changed to say "the daughter of God" and such.

potwalloper wrote:Of course there were only two choices - to appear as a man or a woman. Surely you aren't saying that because he/she/it appeared as a man that this somehow confers a degree of gender differentiation on the christian god per se?

I am saying that He chose to embody a man for specific reasons that should not be ignored. Using the pronoun "she" is ignoring any possible reasons (which are numerous).

potwalloper wrote: How can the use of a female pronoun mock or slander your religion?

When God comes to earth as a male and when we are talking about Christianity that views the Bible as the Word of God, and the Bible says "He" (and also indicates WHY it says "He"), and when almost all of the members of this religion refer to God as a "He"...

A Better Question comes up: How can the use of a female pronoun NOT mock or slander the Christian religion?

potwalloper wrote: If men are not important than women then why is it so important for you to retain the descriptor for god as a male pronoun?

Surely the concept of "man in his own image" referred not to man in a male form but to mankind.

If not are you really saying that god is some sort of giant "man" floating around filling the universe? If so then why isn't the universe shaped like a man? Or is the universe just a part of this omnipresent (giant) man - if so where does our universe sit? In his nose? His beard?

I thought that the whole "in his image" idea was an analogy...

What are you talking about

potwalloper wrote: So what are these reasons?

Please, at least scan my entire post before responding to every sentence. I get to that part.

potwalloper wrote: Are you really saying that you use the male pronoun when describing god as a means of implying the existence of a greater "she" type god?

Now I see why you're confused. It's fine that you don't know a lot about Christian theology, and I'm not asking you to believe it or accept it, but if you want to hold a discussion about Christianity, I don't think it's unreasonable for you to refer to the religion and to the Christian God accurately. I would expect the same to be done for any discussion of a specific religion.

In order to understand that the answer to your above question is "no", you need to understand the different roles that men and women have in Christianity. They are different and they are specific, but neither is worse than the other. I would suggest doing a google search on this topic and reading more if you're interested. Entire books are written on subjects such as this, it won't be hard to find the info.

potwalloper wrote: Surely the whole point of a parable is to facilitate conceptualisation. The use of a gender specific pronoun in such cases is simply due to lexical protocols - use of the wrong gender would make nonsense of the context and therefore nonsense of the parable. That doesn't mean that the gender descriptor applies per se.

You underestimate the depth of the Bible and how many levels it works on. Every healing is done for a reason. Every sentence is placed for a reason. Every parable is told for a reason. You're just skimming the surface.

potwalloper wrote: Surely if the creation of mankind was done in a serial fashion then some gender would have had to be created first. Does this confer any meaning as to the gender of god? That would be like saying I fitted the toilet first in my new bathroom and then the bath - therefore I am a toilet (although I'm sure you have your own opinions on that one!)

Funny example. Don't worry, I won't push it over the top. The assumption that God does or has done everything in a serial fashion should not be made. He, being God, could very well have created both male and female at the same time, and not one from the other or after the other.

1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

The Bible does not say what order the gender of animals was greated. Should we assume, using your logic, that male animals were created first, and female animals from them? Nuh-uh ](*,)

potwalloper wrote:Does that mean that satan is both sexes then? He appeared as a snake and snakes can alter gender depending upon environmental factors...

I don't know the answer. The Bible isn't clear on your specific question - although it does use the reflexive pronoun "himself" for Satan (Luke 10:18). The fact that I don't have the answer is not relevant to this discussion and you pointing this out isn't enough to hold your argument.

potwalloper wrote: I don't think you have made your point. You have referred to gender-specific references in biblical texts as well as attempted to apply the gender of christ in physical form to god in general terms.

And when we're talking about Christianity and when we take into account the views that a Christian holds, these are very good points that support my claim.

potwalloper wrote:You have not at any time explained how a divine being that does not appear to have any gender-specific characteristics (apart from those conferred by the necessity of language) should be referred to as a "he".

As I stated earlier in this response, I'm not going to type a book simply because you don't understand the different roles of men and women in Christianity. After reading about the roles of women in Christianity in the Bible or some other reliable/educated source, you tell me whether which ones are God's.

potwalloper wrote:The use of "he" when referring to god does reinforce the concept that men are more important than women no matter how you try to sell it - "god is a man, therefore men are best". Your religion...

Maybe in the eyes of the people that seek to devalue Christianity by whatever means, but not in any other way.

[scorpia]

I heard this argument that Jesus may have been a girl before..... not on the web, but in real life. There was the need for Jesus to be a king, being descended from David, inheriting the position of a ruler, but turning up as someone who rather served the people, rather than have the people serve him, etc. This had to do with prophecy. But I still wouldn't totally dismiss the Jesus being a girl argument, either. The point of him being male isn't so important, at least not to me...... it's what he did and said that is.

In either case, this may not include the argument of God being male or female. if anything, I would have thought as God being beyond gender, since this is God, who's pretty much beyond everything. He could probably appear as a three-eyed sea horse if he wanted to, but no physical form would limit him. He can be whatever sex he wants to be. Why limit him? Or her?

[bernee51]

I heard this argument that Jesus may have been a girl before..... not on the web, but in real life.

I had not heard that but it does't surprise me given the lack of Y chromosome.

He can be whatever sex he wants to be. Why limit him? Or her?

If you believe that you are obviously not a True Christian (TM) and you are going to end up in the same place as us atheists and other 'non-core' christians.

[chrispalasz]

I think the point I am trying to get at is this: According to the Christian Worldview, God is and should be referred to as a "He", in order to be correct. By arguing this point, I am not saying that God is a male. I am only saying that it is not correct to refer to the Christian God using a femanine pronoun.

Am I wrong on this, or do you agree?

[scorpia]

I had not heard that but it does't surprise me given the lack of Y chromosome.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

If you believe that you are obviously not a True Christian (TM) and you are going to end up in the same place as us atheists and other 'non-core' christians.

Back to the debate at hand; if God is all powerful, etc, why would being one form be a benefit and the
other not? Why can't he be whatever he wishes, since there would be nothing that hinders him? It shouldn't matter either way

I am only saying that it is not correct to refer to the Christian God using a femanine pronoun.

Why would this be an insult to him?