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.

[bernee51]

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.

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 agree with you entirely. In fact if he/she/it is indeed omni-everything, he/she/it can exist just for christians, just for muslims, just for {insert religion} and not at all for me.

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?

If god is indeed perfect would it not be impossible for him to be insulted?

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote

Quote:
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.

So the issue is one of gender roles - I see.

Let's consider this further using your logic:

1 God is superior to the Christians who worship "him"

so - based on this we can also say

2 The superior role is masculine and the inferior role is feminine

3 ergo men are superior to women

What you are saying by your analogy is that men are either more important or superior to women.

When such flawed analogies are applied across society it does lead to gender stereotyping however you may wish to see it.

With respect to eachother, males play the masculine role and females play the femanine role (obviously).

And what are these roles exactly? This is the 21st century you know not the 19th...

Quote:
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.

I don't think you quite understood that I was referring to the social value placed upon females in middle-Eastern society 2000 years ago...

Quote:
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).

But you still haven't explained how this "embodiment" leads to a defensible gender differentiation in god or given me any of the numerous reasons that you mention.

Male characteristics? Well, if you mean murder, violence, anger, revenge yes the God of the bible does have these characteristics - so did Margaret Thatcher.

Quote:
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"...

I still can't see any mockery or slander. Just because a person applies a different perspective does not mean he/she is mocking or slandering. Mockery and slander imply malicious intent. They may simply feel more comfortable conceptualising a gender-neutral god by the use of a feminine pronoun. I can't see the harm I'm afraid.

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

I have answered this above

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

I don't think I could put it more simply I'm afraid and still use multiple syllables...

Quote:
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.

This is nothing to do with my understanding or otherwise of christian theology - it was a simple response to one of your statements that appeared to state this. If I give you the quote in full:

Greenlight311 wrote

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 responded (in full)

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?

It was you that said that the use of such a pronoun implied the existence of a greater and more authoratitive being of the other gender...I simply replaced the pronouns and repeated it back to you to reveal the flaws in your argument...

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.

Now this is an interesting perspective. You clearly see different roles for men and women both within your religion and in the conceptualisation of god, with God (the greatest thing ever) being male and dominant yet you cannot see how this implies inequality?

Gender specification stereotypes are embedded during early years of development and impact across the entire range of human behaviours. To present one gender as somehow analagous to god and the other as not creates schemas that will influence interaction at a subconscious level throughout that person's life.

It is no wonder that on average women earn 25% less than men when such presumptions of inequality are propogated through religous tenets.

You can say that no one gender is better than the other - the analogy with a male god speaks otherwise.

Quote:
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.

I thought it was just an old, contradictory and unverifiable work of fiction. However fictional it may be it would need a consistent use of gender within stories to avoid confusion and retain context.

Sorry but I don't see the bible as having any more depth than the Lord of the Rings or the Cantebury Tales (and there are fewer mistakes in these and the stories are better too... )

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.

This was your assumption not mine and I quote:
Greenlight311 wrote

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.

Sounds like a serial fashion to me - man before woman - you can't get more serial than that (although it doesn't seem very logical to create a being with no womb first - however that is for another thread)

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

Your logic I'm afraid not mine (see above)

Quote:
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 10:1. 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.

Well...I beg to differ. You appeared to be arguing that gender specificity of supernatural beings in their non-physical state differs according to how they appear in a physical form on earth (i.e. Jesus was a man so god must be male). My example was to show that this is not logical when applied to other supernatural beings from christian mythology.

Quote:
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.

Once again I have to beg to differ here. If you are saying that gender bias and stereotyping are fundamental principles of christian theology that still does not show why a gender-neutral supreme being should be referred to as he for any reason other than it appeared to be the best pronoun to use when writing the stories.

It is difficult to relate to "God the It" - much easier methinks to sell god in anthropomorphic terms and apply gender differentiation even though there appears to be no logical reason to do so.

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.

It is you who is saying that god is male not me. As such you need to verify your reasoning for this - something that you have singularly failed to do so far.

Quote:
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.

I am not seeking to devalue christianity in any way. What christians need to appreciate is that dogma in any form (including gender stereotyping) is unconstructive and can have wide reaching consequences for any society that brings children up within a religious framework.

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

[DanMRaymond]

I can simplify this argument. If God never made it clear wether he should be referred to as a "he" or a "she" than NOBODY else is in any position to do so for God. Just accept the fact that God is an "IT"

[bernee51]

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?

Let me see if I understand this...

you are stating that it is convention within christianity to refer to god as male and to do otherwise is not correct in a christian sense.

God, however, as an entity, is gender neutral.

Is that correct?

[chrispalasz]

bernee51: Let me see if I understand this...

you are stating that it is convention within christianity to refer to god as male and to do otherwise is not correct in a christian sense.

God, however, as an entity, is gender neutral.

Is that correct?

I believe you've stated it correctly. I highlighted a part in blue that I feel is important.

In elaboration: You well know how many religions and gods there are. Each religion has defined their god in a different manner. To speak of their god in away that is outside of that religions definition is not correct and is offensive.

This is because (from an outside perspective): what defines a particular religion's god other than that particular religion? Nothing. And so you must use the conventions they use in order to be polite and correct when holding a civil discussion regarding such.

Thank you, bernee51, for paying attention to that short little post of mine. I feel it's important to focus on the main point of the discussion if the members involved do not feel it has been resolved. This is the only point I care to address at this time, and I feel this point is being missed because of side issues.

*I love to discuss. I hate to argue.

[chrispalasz]

DanMRaymond: I can simplify this argument. If God never made it clear wether he should be referred to as a "he" or a "she" than NOBODY else is in any position to do so for God. Just accept the fact that God is an "IT"

I am sorry, sir. You have not acheived your goal of simplifying this discussion. Please follow along with this line of reasoning:

1. We are talking about Christianity.
2. According to Christianity, the Bible is the Word of God.
3. The Bible refers to God (and every aspect of God such as Jesus and the Holy Spirit) as a "He".
4. The Bible never refers to God as a "she" or an "it".

Using this reasoning alone, as if there were no other reason, is this good enough? If not, please give detailed reasoning as to why not.

[chrispalasz]

To potwalloper:
(All quotes on this post are potwalloper's)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call this discussion to an end. It is no longer being productive and I can see that discussing this issue with you will not lead anywhere.

I feel as though you are:

1. Ignoring the points I'm making, or not understanding them.
2. Ignoring or not understanding them even with clarification.
3. Completely straying from the topic of focus.
4. Posting responses out of bitterness rather than to acheive understanding.
5. Stretching certain other things I say to apply to things that don't work and are not relevant to this discussion.

I see that you do not have respect for Christianity (indicated in the "Why is Christianity Good" thread among other places) and I beleive that is hindering you from agreeing with me no matter what I say.

Before I end this discussion between you and I, so there is no misunderstanding for other readers, I will clarify a few points from your last post.

So the issue is one of gender roles - I see.

Let's consider this further using your logic:

1 God is superior to the Christians who worship "him"

so - based on this we can also say

2 The superior role is masculine and the inferior role is feminine

3 ergo men are superior to women

What you are saying by your analogy is that men are either more important or superior to women.

When such flawed analogies are applied across society it does lead to gender stereotyping however you may wish to see it.

This is a one sided view. When the roles that God established are viewed fully (as opposed to partially, as you have done here), there is no descrimination at all. You did not analyze the role that God gives men and demonstrates through Jesus Christ. Everything promotes equality when you use the entire equation instead of just part of it.

Phillipians 2:5-7
5Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,[a] 6who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

This is nothing to do with my understanding or otherwise of christian theology - it was a simple response to one of your statements that appeared to state this. If I give you the quote in full:

Greenlight311 wrote:
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 responded (in full)

potwalloper wrote: 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?

It was you that said that the use of such a pronoun implied the existence of a greater and more authoratitive being of the other gender...I simply replaced the pronouns and repeated it back to you to reveal the flaws in your argument...

In this scenario, you have quoted our entire discussion and you still fail to see how your argument does not work. It does not work because it is not relevant to Christianity. It's a fine argument to make... but not under the focus of the discussion we are currently having. With that respect, it offers nothing.

You are not correct in your statement because of the focus of our discussion, which I believe you have lost sight of here. In fact, the topic that you were supposed to be discussing still has everything to do with how much you know about Christian theology, beliefs, and upholdings, which you are ignoring with this argument.

I thought it was just an old, contradictory and unverifiable work of fiction. However fictional it may be it would need a consistent use of gender within stories to avoid confusion and retain context.

Sorry but I don't see the bible as having any more depth than the Lord of the Rings or the Cantebury Tales (and there are fewer mistakes in these and the stories are better too... )

Okay. This is fine. But this view says a lot more about you than it does about the Bible, no matter how you put it.

Moving on, I must make a correction. The assumption that God does or has done everything in a serial fashion was your assumption, not mine. I've highlighted some important words in this statement. You claim that it was my assumption, and you proceed to quote me. The problem is that I only said (and the Bible only says) that certain and specific things were done in a serial order. You assumed, from that, that everything was done in a serial order. And by overextending my statement to areas that it didn't apply to, you made some faulty arguments.

Correction #2: Certain places in your posts indicate or state that I have claimed God is male. I never made any such claim.

I am not seeking to devalue christianity in any way. What christians need to appreciate is that dogma in any form (including gender stereotyping) is unconstructive and can have wide reaching consequences for any society that brings children up within a religious framework.

Your personal opinion about how Christianity should refer to God does not affect and will not change how they do refer to God. Nor will it affect the correct way to refer to the Christian God. Finally, we are not even discussing the fact that you obviously dispute how God should be referred to. We are discussing the correct way to refer to the Christian God - according to the source that defines the Christian God, which is Christianity. Thus, your personal say or opinion has no baring on this discussion. Since you cannot get past this point, I simply won't discuss it with you any longer.

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.

Anyway, have a great holiday!

[Piper Plexed]

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.

Anyway, have a great holiday!

And in this incidental side note sits the crux of potwalloper's argument. For me what little I have found redeeming in your argument as a Christian to a Christian was just undermined. I was just wondering if my lovely, young, single. Christian neighbor who works as a scientist for some huge pharmaceutical company here in NJ (she makes well into the six figure range so they certainly must find her to be bright and talented) comes up with the cure to Cancer and you have cancer, well, would you refuse the medication as it was developed by a Christian female not following the role God has designated for her? Similarly how could you be so sure that it won’t be a woman presidents hand that guides us to world peace? Who knows maybe you actually believe that absolute stupidest man that exists on the planet today is actually brighter than the very brightest woman that exists on the planet today? That certainly would be an interesting idea.

[chrispalasz]

Hahaha - well, I don't think it's really appropriate for me to respond to your post on this thread (we could start an entirely NEW thread discussing the topic of a woman's role in modern days!), but hey, you're a moderator! I'll leave that up to you.

Piper Plexed wrote: And in this incidental side note sits the crux of potwalloper's argument. For me what little I have found redeeming in your argument as a Christian to a Christian was just undermined. I was just wondering if my lovely, young, single. Christian neighbor who works as a scientist for some huge pharmaceutical company here in NJ (she makes well into the six figure range so they certainly must find her to be bright and talented) comes up with the cure to Cancer and you have cancer, well, would you refuse the medication as it was developed by a Christian female not following the role God has designated for her?

I don't see how working in medecine falls outside of a woman's role? I have no problem with women doctors. I would gladly accept the medicine and the contribution, and I would thank that woman personally (if I could. She would be quite famous).

Piper Plexed wrote: Similarly how could you be so sure that it won’t be a woman presidents hand that guides us to world peace? Who knows maybe you actually believe that absolute stupidest man that exists on the planet today is actually brighter than the very brightest woman that exists on the planet today? That certainly would be an interesting idea.

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.

Note that I did add that disclaimer at the end. Circumstances could exist where I would vote for a woman to be President. But without specific conditions, I follow what the Bible says and would not.

Also, what you refer to as the "crux" of patwolloper's argument further serves my point that the discussion was completely off the intended focus. I have no desire to participate in a discussion of that "crux". I am only branching off to close the point I started to make from the previous forum.

[Piper Plexed]

I don't see how working in medecine falls outside of a woman's role? I have no problem with women doctors. I would gladly accept the medicine and the contribution, and I would thank that woman personally (if I could. She would be quite famous).

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 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.

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?

Note that I did add that disclaimer at the end. Circumstances could exist where I would vote for a woman to be President. But without specific conditions, I follow what the Bible says and would not.

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!

Also, what you refer to as the "crux" of patwolloper's argument further serves my point that the discussion was completely off the intended focus. I have no desire to participate in a discussion of that "crux". I am only branching off to close the point I started to make from the previous forum.

I do not see it as off topic, how could we discuss popular Christian perception of God as male w/o discussing the effects of that perception on Christian woman or for that matter society as a whole? Why not lobotomize half of the race.