Why refer to God as "He"?

DanMRaymond · Post by **DanMRaymond** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:35 pm

GreenLight311 wrote: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.

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:07 pm

Piper Plexed wrote: Well of course she doesn't work alone, for her to be designated founder of the cure for cancer she would be the team lead and of course men would be reporting to her. If woman are to be subservient to men how could she possibly lead? Either she is respected and follows her research to fruition w/o regard for her gender but for her abilities or maybe we just keep getting cancer.

I am quite confident that I don't know. This is a difficult situation. I don't have any problems with women practicing medicine. Leading a medical team? Hmmm... I'm not sure. Maybe... maybe not. Would this woman be a Christian? Or not?

I'll stick with: I'm not sure. I would have to look into it more. I would look into it more if it were a real situation, but it's not. Also, either way, of course I would accept the cure. God most definately uses sinners to forward His plan of salvation and He brings good things into this world at the hands of sinners.

Piper Plexed wrote: So what you are saying is that if man (meaning male) follows God, then God will reward man with blessings of intelligence, greater than any woman living could ever hope to achieve. Or a male that dropped out of 6th grade, if he is sinless, he would be endowed with abilities greater than the brightest woman living?

Please explain how you came to this understanding based off of what I have said. Also, please be explicit in your answer. I truly have no idea. Thanks.

Piper Plexed wrote: Your opinions speak louder than the disclaimer, and why does Venus have to pass Mars causing an eclipse during a leap year for you to vote for a woman? Heck when all else fails we'll let Betty be president How Magnanimous!

Words speak louder than words? So... basically the words you want to read speak louder than the words you don't want to read?

I wouldn't lie about something so ridiculous. Come to think of it, I really wouldn't lie at all. I am extremely dissapointed in myself at the times when I catch myself in a lie - and I have not once caught myself telling a lie on this entire web forum... ever.

And that's a clever choice example: Venus and Mars. I can assure you, it would take much less than that. It would simply take God to convict me of such an action... that could be as little or as large of a conviction as He might choose.

Piper Plexed wrote: I do not see it as off topic

You don't see it as off topic? Really? Hmmm... well did you follow the discussion all the way from the "When will you become a Christian?" forum? If not, that could be the reason.

Or maybe you don't understand what the argument is.

Or maybe you didn't read that mini-post I wrote:
http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... 0838#10838

Piper Plexed wrote:how could we discuss popular Christian perception of God as male w/o discussing the effects of that perception on Christian woman?

We are discussing what that current perception is and has been for the past 2000 years(roughly). We are not discussing what certain individuals think that it should be. That's how it's not relevant.

All I have been trying to get at is the answer to the following 3 questions:

1. Do you disagree that the current Christian perception is that it is correct for all pronoun references to God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit to be made using a pronoun of masculine gender? If yes, why?

2. Do you disagree that the current Christian perception is that it is incorrect for all pronoun references to God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit to be made using a pronoun of femanine gender? If yes, why?

3. Do you disagree that the current Christian perception is that it is incorrect for all pronoun references to God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit to be made using a pronoun of neuter gender? If yes, why?

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:14 pm

As a side note:

I surely don't have any need to seek to change a person's mind if they should think I somehow hold a bias against women... or if they should think I somehow am sexist or discriminate against them.

I know an extremely large number of women that will testify contrary to this belief.

Further more, I also know multiple women that share a belief identical to my own regarding the roles of men and women.

I know multiple women that would also not vote for a female president.

It's unreasonable to take something as simple as my personal disclaimer above and indicate that what I said is not true on the basis of other things I have said.

If you're not going to believe what I say... please, feel free to stop addressing me in discussion. I don't even want to bother saying it, if you're simply not going to believe it based on such a weak premise.

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:12 pm

GreenLight311 wrote: I am quite confident that I don't know. This is a difficult situation. I don't have any problems with women practicing medicine. Leading a medical team? Hmmm... I'm not sure. Maybe... maybe not. Would this woman be a Christian? Or not?

I'll stick with: I'm not sure. I would have to look into it more. I would look into it more if it were a real situation, but it's not. Also, either way, of course I would accept the cure. God most definately uses sinners to forward His plan of salvation and He brings good things into this world at the hands of sinners.

As previously stated, she is a Christian and GO FIGURE, she is a real person! We happen to leave for Church at the same time on Sundays. Not only does she head up a team here in NJ but another team which requires her to travel often, I know this cause we watch her house while she is away.

GreenLight311 wrote: Please explain how you came to this understanding based off of what I have said. Also, please be explicit in your answer. I truly have no idea. Thanks.

Don't you say here..

GreenLight311 wrote:I can't be sure. There have been women in the Bible that God rose up to lead where men have failed... but this is because men are sinful and have failed at their position. It could happen... but it's not supposed to according to the different roles that God has established. It happens because we are sinful humans and we are failures. Only with God can we succeed.

When men have sinned woman have ruled? To me that says a sinless male is automatically elevated above all woman. The only way for the Bible to allow a woman to rule is for all available men to be sinful correct?

GreenLight311 wrote: Words speak louder than words? So... basically the words you want to read speak louder than the words you don't want to read?

I wouldn't lie about something so ridiculous. Come to think of it, I really wouldn't lie at all. I am extremely dissapointed in myself at the times when I catch myself in a lie - and I have not once caught myself telling a lie on this entire web forum... ever.

And that's a clever choice example: Venus and Mars. I can assure you, it would take much less than that. It would simply take God to convict me of such an action... that could be as little or as large of a conviction as He might choose.

The gist of your argument speaks louder than your legal disclaimer at the end of it. Now if you would like me to apply equal weight to your argument as well as your one line disclaimer then there is nothing to discuss as the premise of your position becomes a direct contradiction

GreenLight311 wrote:
Piper Plexed wrote: I do not see it as off topic
You don't see it as off topic? Really? Hmmm... well did you follow the discussion all the way from the "When will you become a Christian?" forum? If not, that could be the reason.

Or maybe you don't understand what the argument is.

Or maybe you didn't read that mini-post I wrote:
http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... 0838#10838

Piper Plexed wrote:how could we discuss popular Christian perception of God as male w/o discussing the effects of that perception on Christian woman?
We are discussing what that current perception is and has been for the past 2000 years(roughly). We are not discussing what certain individuals think that it should be. That's how it's not relevant.

What is current perception if not what individuals today think? If what individuals think is irrelevant than with whom do you wish to discuss this?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I may be remiss in my moderation duties, please feel free to reach out to other moderators if you believe I have intentionally derailed the thread.

I believe I am within parameters of a constructive thread in that we encourage new threads evolving from existing threads because topics evolve, in this case I believe the topic evolved to...

DanMRaymond wrote:Why refer to God as "He"?
GreenLight311 wrote: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.

Which to me is a discussion of the subjugation of woman through faith and a generally misogynistic interpretation of God. If we were created in Gods image, how can God not be a she as well. Actually since males cannot bear offspring I would tend to think that there is greater reasoning behind an assumption that God is female (that is if I am forced to choose between the genders)

*edited to correct grammar

Piper Plexed · Post by **Piper Plexed** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:22 pm

GreenLight311 wrote:As a side note:

If you're not going to believe what I say... please, feel free to stop addressing me in discussion. I don't even want to bother saying it, if you're simply not going to believe it based on such a weak premise.

Now that is a really constructive sentiment, don't talk to me if you refuse to believe me

I seem to have been clearly shown my place

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:08 am

Piper Plexed wrote: As previously stated, she is a Christian and GO FIGURE, she is a real person! We happen to leave for Church at the same time on Sundays. Not only does she head up a team here in NJ but another team which requires her to travel often, I know this cause we watch her house while she is away.

Okay, so she's a real person. I missed that part. I don't suppose she also really has the cure for cancer? If so, please let me know. Word has not spread to us, here in Chicago.

Piper Plexed wrote: Don't you say here..

I wrote:
I can't be sure. There have been women in the Bible that God rose up to lead where men have failed... but this is because men are sinful and have failed at their position. It could happen... but it's not supposed to according to the different roles that God has established. It happens because we are sinful humans and we are failures. Only with God can we succeed.
When men have sinned woman have ruled? To me that says a sinless male is automatically elevated above all woman. The only way for the Bible to allow a woman to rule is for all available men to be sinful correct?

No, thanks for asking. There is nothing inferior about women in comparison with men. They merely are chosen for different roles. I was saying that when men fail to fill their roles, those roles still need to be filled, and so women fill them. The same applies to women for men. There are many men that play a woman's role due to their failures. It really goes both ways. I don't see what the big deal is.

Piper Plexed wrote:
The gist of your argument speaks louder than your legal disclaimer at the end of it. Now if you would like me to apply equal weight to your argument as well as your one line disclaimer then there is no point a discussion as the premise of your position becomes a direct contradiction

I don't see anything speaking louder than anything. I would like you to apply equal weight. Now, point out the contridiction you see, because there is none.

Piper Plexed wrote:What is current perception if not what individuals today think? If what individuals think is irrelevant than with whom do you wish to discuss this?

Replace the word "perception" with the word convention. Let's try that one again.

Piper Plexed wrote: You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I may be remiss in my moderation duties, please feel free to reach out to other moderators if you believe I have intentionally derailed the thread.

I believe I am within parameters of a constructive thread in that we encourage new threads evolving from existing threads because topics evolve, in this case I believe the topic evolved to...
DanMRaymond wrote:
Why refer to God as "He"?
GreenLight311 wrote:
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.
Which to me is a discussion of the subjugation of woman through faith and a generally misogynistic interpretation of God.

I sense your sarcasm.

What we have here, is that DanMRaymond copied one of my quotes and started a new thread with it. He then invites me to "please explain".

You have to learn to crawl before you can learn to walk.
You have to learn to walk before you can learn to run...
but you seem to want to start off running.

Let's start from the beginning, not the end. You first need to establish that it is not "correct" to refer to God as a He, if that's your position. Go ahead and answer these 3 questions.

All I have been trying to get at is the answer to the following 3 questions:

1. Do you disagree that the current Christian perception is that it is correct for all pronoun references to God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit to be made using a pronoun of masculine gender? If yes, why?

2. Do you disagree that the current Christian perception is that it is incorrect for all pronoun references to God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit to be made using a pronoun of femanine gender? If yes, why?

3. Do you disagree that the current Christian perception is that it is incorrect for all pronoun references to God/Jesus Christ/Holy Spirit to be made using a pronoun of neuter gender? If yes, why?

Piper Plexed: If we were created in Gods image, how can God not be a she as well. Actually since males cannot bear offspring I would tend to think that there is greater reasoning behind an assumption that God is female (that is if I am forced to choose between the genders)

God is neither male nore female. Why do you think God made two genders for human beings instead of just 1 gender to asexually reproduce? The relationship men have with women is a reminder of our relationship with God. We're supposed to functionally have the same relationship with eachother as God does with us.

I don't know why you're crying foul. If I were in your position, I wouldn't be. And, yes, childbirth is a wonderful thing. Congratulations.

Piper Plexed:Now that is a really constructive sentiment, don't talk to me if you refuse to believe me I seem to have been clearly shown my place

In context, your statement is incredibly ridiculous.

Analogous situation:
Maybe I want to buy clothes that are red, but my favorite color is green.
Go ahead, tell me I'm not going to buy red clothes. Tell me I'll come back with green ones.
Argue what position I hold. Argue my own opinion with me.

If you're going to be me, then I don't need to. You can have a discussion with yourself.

potwalloper. · Post by **potwalloper.** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:12 pm

Greenlight311 wrote

Quote:
What was the name of the last woman president of the US again?

And as a side note regarding this little tid-bit... not only does the fact that no woman has ever been President of the United States not have anything to do with our discussion - but I wouldn't vote for a woman to be President anyway. I don't agree that a woman should hold such a position, in the same way that I won't become a member of any church that allows women to be pastors. It's not because I don't think a woman can do it, but it's because God has established seperate roles for men and women and I don't believe that is the role for a woman to have.

There is a slight chance that I would vote for a woman president, but God would have to make some pretty heavy indications to me that I should, so the circumstances are slim. But I suppose there's always a chance.

At last we now have the true reason why you dislike people referring to god as she.

You are a sexist. This is not meant to be an insult but is a simple statement of fact. Why didn't you simply say so at the beginning and we could have saved ourselves a lot of meaningless discussion.

Once again we have religious beliefs trying to wrap up pork and say it is chicken...

You can hide behind the statement that "people have different roles" all you like. Sexism is sexism no matter how you couch it and that was my point throughout.

If I said that black and white people have "different roles" you would call me a racist and rightly so. Your view on gender roles is no different if you care to examine it carefully, or peel back the blinkers of your fundametalist belief for just a moment.

Perhaps we should ban women from voting? Stop them from working? Tie them to the kitchen sink...

My mind boggles that such beliefs can exist in the 21st century - and we thought that the Taliban were bad!

hannahjoy · Post by **hannahjoy** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 9:57 pm

Well, I guess I'm sexist too! Thanks for informing me of that.
At least, I believe that in most cases men should have the leadership roles, and women should be the followers, helpers, and supporters, as equals with different roles.
Only, I'm a girl - I didn't know girls could be sexist, but if you say so.

I wouldn't want to vote for a woman president, but it might be the lesser of two evils in the near future.

Hannah Joy

Gaunt · Post by **Gaunt** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 10:40 pm

hannahjoy wrote:At least, I believe that in most cases men should have the leadership roles, and women should be the followers, helpers, and supporters, as equals with different roles.
Only, I'm a girl - I didn't know girls could be sexist, but if you say so.

[mirror]
At least, I believe that in most cases white people should have the leadership roles, and black people should be the followers, helpers, and supporters, as equals with different roles.
Only, I'm a black person - I didn't know black people could be racist, but if you say so.
[/mirror]

One's gender does not preclude "isms" of any kind, just as one's race does not.

hannahjoy · Post by **hannahjoy** » Sat Dec 18, 2004 11:07 pm

The Bible doesn't teach that blacks and whites have different roles.
It does very clearly teach that men and women have different roles. We don't believe it because we are sexist, we are sexist (according to your definition) because we believe it, and we believe it because it's Biblical. We also believe God should be refered to as a "He" because it's Biblical.
Different doesn't mean inequal, it just means that people are better suited to certain roles, based on, among other things, their gender.
I'd rather be a sexist than a feminist.

Hannah Joy

potwalloper. · Post by **potwalloper.** » Sun Dec 19, 2004 3:09 am

HannahJoy wrote

The Bible doesn't teach that blacks and whites have different roles.
It does very clearly teach that men and women have different roles. We don't believe it because we are sexist, we are sexist (according to your definition) because we believe it, and we believe it because it's Biblical. We also believe God should be refered to as a "He" because it's Biblical.
Different doesn't mean inequal, it just means that people are better suited to certain roles, based on, among other things, their gender.
I'd rather be a sexist than a feminist.

Your views have no bearing on this debate because you are a mere woman. I am a man and am therefore superior. I am exercising my leadership role in discounting your opinion in this instance.

Please get back to your place and leave us men to debate this - perhaps you could make the dinner and mother some children...

The ultimate outcome of sexist belief is sexist behaviour. Women have fought for hundreds of years to establish some sort of equality in society. If it wasn't for them you would not even have the option to vote for a president.

I am saddened that such misguided views on equality still persist in spite of the dedication of feminist activists over the centuries. You should be grateful for what they have given you and look long and hard at countries where women's rights are more overtly disregarded. If you had lived in Afghanistan under the Taleban your views may be different on this subject.

All forms of inequality are wrong in a civilised society. "Different roles" is simply another way of saying different value. It is a small step from sexism to racism, homophobia, anti-semitism and all of the other scourges of human behaviour. Beware the creeping hand of bigotry - it threatens to strangle the freedom of all women if religion has its way.

Why do you think the bible established these different roles? Because it was written by men of course!

Your work opportunities, earnings potential, freedom of thought and action can all be subjagated by beliefs such as yours on gender roles within society. Women earn less than men. This is nothing to do with the cloak of biblical teachings - it is to do with sexist behaviour as expressed in the workplace.

You don't know how lucky you are that some of the barriers to inequality have now come down.