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.

[Piper Plexed]

Greenlight311, For someone who claims to not know Hannahjoy, I wonder why you feel free to speak on her behalf. I would rather think that Hannajoy is a big girl (actually I suspect she is a woman) and it is well within her abilities to speak for herself.

I was merely pointing out to Hannajoy that different but equal does parallel separate but equal and that it was not such a great jump of linguistics to interpret her words in that manner, so please let's keep the lecturing to a minimum as it is quite condescending.

Piper Plexed: You are not equal to Hannah Joy because you are not the exact same person. Can I say that you two are unequal? Yes. Does that mean she's better than you, or the other way around? No.

The problem with this analogy is that we are not discussing the value of individuals here but the value of a gender and in this case Hannajoy and Piper Plexed are of equal value as human beings. Where we differ is that I believe that all human beings are of equal value and should all be afforded equal opportunity in life. You and Hannajoy disagree and feel it is appropriate to restrict opportunity based on gender. To me this is like saying only male dogs should be guard dogs (be it a Shit Zu or a German Shepherd) and only female dogs should be companions to the elderly (be it a Shit Zu or a German Shepherd) What exactly does the gender of the dog have to do with it's abilities and talents?

Piper Plexed, dangerdan, potwalloper: Nobody expects you to like Christianity, and nobody expects you to listen to what the Bible says - but you don't define Christianity. Nobody can ever define what they don't understand themselves. Nobody can ever understand what they aren't willing to learn about.

You can call it sexist all you want, but that doesn't speak for Christianity, not in the least. It only speaks for the hatred against it.

Nor does your particular interpretation define Christianity either Sir. Honestly I am shocked by the arrogance and vanity of the above comment. How can any man ever be so steadfast in the knowledge that their particular interpretation of the Bible is Gods will.

It's easy to point fingers and play the blame game, but I don't see what you seek to gain from this discussion. You're not asking Christians any questions, you're telling us what we think.

As for the blame game, well I wouldn't take it so personally if I were you, when it comes to the subjugation of woman there is certainly more than enough blame to go around and it definitely began long before Christ walked on this earth. The big question for me as a woman and as a Christian is why do we perpetuate it. I do not believe that it is what Christ wants for us. You accuse me of telling people what to think, funny cause all this time I thought we were having a discussion. What I seek to gain is a greater understanding of the religion that frames my faith.

[hannahjoy]

So now I'm sexist, and schizophrenic, and dishonest, and suffering from low self-esteem! I'm so glad I came to this forum - otherwise I would never have known myself!
To Piper Plexed:
You evidence a singular tendency to miss important words in others' posts.

In this situation, "different" and "separate" are not synonyms

No two words have exactly the same meaning. Each has a slightly different connotation. The phrase "separate but equal" refers to segregation. I'm not advocating segregation.

GreenLight311 said:

You're not asking Christians any questions, you're telling us what we think.

You said:

You accuse me of telling people what to think

You also said:

Where we differ is that I believe that all human beings are of equal value

As I already said, I agree with that.

I never said (and don't believe) that women have a different value.

But you said:

Well I must say that if one can not see that an adult (in this case a woman) may have greater value to society than a child (in this case a girl) then we really do have a difference of opinion.

Then do you disagree with society? Jesus did - Matthew 19:13-15.
By the way, I never called myself a child. In this situation, "girl" and "(female) child" are not synonyms.

The Christianity I believe comes from the Bible - does yours? If so, perhaps you could back up your beliefs with Scripture.

I do think that the roles of men and women are a different but related topic. If someone wants to start a thread on that, I might respond to it if I have time. I think it's too important to be buried at the end of this one.

If you all can read carefully, and refrain from calling me a liar, we might have a profitable debate. At present I'm too busy defending myself from personal attacks to debate the questions on this thread.

One last thing - my name is Hannah Joy! Please have the courtesy to spell it right. All you have to do is copy and paste!

[chrispalasz]

Piper Plexed wrote: wonder why you feel free to speak on her behalf. I would rather think that Hanajoy is a big girl (actually I suspect she is a woman) and it is well within her abilities to speak for herself.

I don't know where you think I tried to speak on her behalf. I did no such thing. Quote me on it, then I'll explain how you were mistaken.

I'm sincerely sorry that you found my post condecending. I will try to tone down my lecturing in the future.

hannahjoy has brought up a good point, though. I would like to see some scripture to verify your current beliefs regarding the male and female genders - as well as the original topic, which is whether or not God can be referred to as a "she" or an "it". Please point out Bible verses that agree with your view. Thanks.

Piper Plexed wrote: The big question for me as a woman and as a Christian is why do we perpetuate it. I do not believe that it is what Christ wants for us. You accuse me of telling people what to think, funny cause all this time I thought we were having a discussion. What I seek to gain is a greater understanding of the religion that frames my faith.

As a friendly suggestion from one person that holds Christianity in high regards to another, I suggest you seek a greater understanding of the religion that frames your faith through the Bible, not a discussion forum. If you won't listen to me... will you at least listen to the Bible?

Piper Plexed wrote: The problem with this analogy is that we are not discussing the value of individuals here but the value of a gender and in this case Hannajoy and Piper Plexed are of equal value as human beings. Where we differ is that I believe that all human beings are of equal value and should all be afforded equal opportunity in life. You and Hannajoy disagree and feel it is appropriate to restrict opportunity based on gender. To me this is like saying only male dogs should be guard dogs (be it a Shit Zu or a German Shepherd) and only female dogs should be companions to the elderly (be it a Shit Zu or a German Shepherd) What exactly does the gender of the dog have to do with it's abilities and talents?

Are you saying that there is something wrong with a dog being a companion to the elderly? Why shouldn't female dogs be companions for the elderly? What's wrong with the elderly? I don't understand why you are discriminating here.

You look down on one position and see it as inferior. That says nothing about the roles that men and women play. Both are important, both are necessary. They're just not the same roles. Men and women are not the same. Are you arguing that? Since you believe in God... did God discriminate when He created men and women? Why can't men have children? That's not fair! If you were male, maybe that would be your complaint. I don't know, but I do know that your argument is not here, with me, or with anyone else -- it's with God.

[dangerdan]

Piper Plexed, dangerdan, potwalloper: Nobody expects you to like Christianity, and nobody expects you to listen to what the Bible says - but you don't define Christianity. Nobody can ever define what they don't understand themselves. Nobody can ever understand what they aren't willing to learn about.

You can call it sexist all you want, but that doesn't speak for Christianity, not in the least. It only speaks for the hatred against it.

Hmmm, this comment causes me some sadness. I find it quite odd (and even a tad bit offensive) that you wrote

Nobody can ever understand what they aren’t willing to learn about

. I was wondering why you assume that I have never tried to learn about Christianity? Because I am now an Atheist? How curious.

It's easy to point fingers and play the blame game, but I don't see what you seek to gain from this discussion. You're not asking Christians any questions, you're telling us what we think.

Well actually I asked you and Hannahjoy quite a specific question back here…

Yes yes, but do you think the authors of the bible referred to God as a “he” because it was the language convention, or because they thought God was masculine? If the former, then why is there a problem with someone using “she” as a gender-neutral pronoun. If the latter, then why do you think God is like a male?

...and here...

Which is why I think it prudent to examine exactly what is meant by “different rolls”. Should social rolls be determined by gender and not by competence or experience or ability etc etc? That’s what I’m asking. Though it is a little off topic, and I can understand if a moderator would rather leave this question for another thread…but I think it’s still ties in.

I understand your time constraints, and I won’t get offended if you can’t get around to answering these, but if you are concerned that I am not asking you questions, then these two from my last post could be a good place to start.

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote

Piper Plexed, dangerdan, potwalloper: Nobody expects you to like Christianity, and nobody expects you to listen to what the Bible says - but you don't define Christianity. Nobody can ever define what they don't understand themselves. Nobody can ever understand what they aren't willing to learn about.

You can call it sexist all you want, but that doesn't speak for Christianity, not in the least. It only speaks for the hatred against it.

Well this is really rather simple - it is not an issue of defining something that one does not understand but rather of the accurate categorisation of views based upon their nature:

If I said that black and white people have different roles and should therefore be judged on this rather than their merits I would be classified accurately as a racist.

If I said that gay and straight people have different roles and should therefore be judged on this rather than their merits I would be classified accurately as homophobic.

If I said that Jews and Christians people have different roles and should therefore be judged on this rather than their merits I would be classified accurately as anti-semitic or anti-christian.

If I said that young and old people have different roles and should therefore be judged on this rather than their merits I would be classified accurately as an ageist.

If I said that women and men have different roles and should therefore be judged on this rather than their merits I would be classified accurately as a sexist.

People would not need to understand my motives or my worldview to make these classifications - the very fact that I express views in this way makes the classification automatic.

People should be treated equally and equality means the same - no prejudgement, no allocation to roles, no preconceptions, no stereotyping.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!

This can be extrapolated to all forms of discrimination.

Your statements are what classify you as a sexist just as the statements of the KKK classify them as racist. Your reasons for making such statements matter not a jot. You can base them on christianity, islam or just plain bigotry - either way sexism is sexism. Sorry if the truth is unpalatable...

[potwalloper.]

Greenhanna/lightjoy wrote

So now I'm sexist, and schizophrenic, and dishonest, and suffering from low self-esteem! I'm so glad I came to this forum - otherwise I would never have known myself!

Please stop playing games Greenlight...it is an insult to our intelligence

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote

I'm sorry we don't agree on this issue. I tried to tell you that I'm not the only person that holds the Christian View, and I can assure you that I had nothing to do with Hannah Joy posting here (even though I enjoy and appreciate another Christian's presence )

...and black is white and Elvis is alive and well and living in Luton and there really is a B52 bomber on the far side of the moon.

[Corvus]

Greenhanna/lightjoy wrote

So now I'm sexist, and schizophrenic, and dishonest, and suffering from low self-esteem! I'm so glad I came to this forum - otherwise I would never have known myself!

Please stop playing games Greenlight...it is an insult to our intelligence

According to the IP information, despite being quite similar in perspective, Greenlight and Hannah Joy are posting from two different locations. I'll leave it to otseng to run a trace-route or something similar, since I'm technically inept, but all indications point to them being different people.

[Corvus]

I never said men and women are "separate but equal." That's segregation. They are different but equal.

Then if they are different but equal then it is no disservice to call God a she. The pronoun one uses should then depend on whether one considers God to be more masculine or more feminine. Evidently, some consider it to be feminine.

You look down on one position and see it as inferior. That says nothing about the roles that men and women play. Both are important, both are necessary. They're just not the same roles.

Evidently not important or necessary enough on divine level, since not a single member of the trinity is considered to be male, and you are arguing that to call them anything other than male is to mischaracterise them. Are those characteristics we ascribe to the feminine just not needed in the most supreme being, or in his clique?

Personally I have no problem with people saying men and women are different but equal. What I do have a problem with is the belief that men and women actually belong in different roles based on birth, as if God frowns most mightily upon a man who wants to be a hairdresser or a woman who wants to be a truckdriver. Or that if a woman were to invent a cure for a cancer, such a thing might be termed a "happy accident", while if a man were to do the same, he is fulfilling his intended purpose. The idea of social allocation based on birth is what gave us the divine right of kings to rule over peasantry, and though not every king deserves King Edward's unpleasant punishment (I am hoping at least Potwaller knows what I'm joking about here), it was an institution unjust by principle. I also have to wonder how one determines what roles a gender covers. Is a committee involved? Who appointed them? If men and women only kept to their traditional roles, men would still be hunters, women would be gatherers, and progress would be lousy.

[bernee51]

Greenhanna/lightjoy wrote

So now I'm sexist, and schizophrenic, and dishonest, and suffering from low self-esteem! I'm so glad I came to this forum - otherwise I would never have known myself!

Please stop playing games Greenlight...it is an insult to our intelligence

GL is a self confessed "True Christian" (TM) - to do as you suggest would be duplicitious. Duplicity could make the baby Jesus cry and such an action would put GL at risk of eternal damnation..

Can't see it happening myself.