Women Priests, the thin end of the wedge?

[Sam]

Then, why not just make it gender neutral? "If one is to do work, t'were best it be done well"

Why the gratuitous insertion of a female "one"?

Because English doesn't have a gender neutral pronoun for persons.

Why is the feminine pronoun gratuitous? We use the masculine pronoun all the time in such situations. ("If you're going to get someone to do the work for you, he better do a good job.")

[Adrift]

Then, why not just make it gender neutral? "If one is to do work, t'were best it be done well"

Why the gratuitous insertion of a female "one"?

It's deliberately done in academia to show support or solidarity for the feminist perspective.

Wikipedia has a decent breakdown on why it's become so popular within the last few decades.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English

Gender neutrality in English became a growing area of interest among academics during Second Wave Feminism, when the work of structuralist linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, and his theories on semiotics, became more well known in academic circles. By the 1960s and 1970s, post-structuralist theorists, particularly in France, brought wider attention to gender-neutrality theory, and the concept of supporting gender equality through conscious changes to language. Feminists analyzing the English language put forward their own theories about the power of language to create and enforce gender determinism and the marginalization of the feminine. Debates touched on such issues as changing the term "stewardess" to the gender-neutral "flight attendant", "fireman" to "fire fighter", "mailman" to "mail carrier", and so on. At the root of this contentiousness may have been feminists' backlash against the English language's shift from "grammatical gender" to "natural gender" during the early Modern era[13] coinciding with the spread of institutional prescriptive grammar rules in English schools. These theories have been challenged by some researchers, with attention given to additional possible social, ethnic, economic, and cultural influences on language and gender.[14] The impact on mainstream language has been limited,[15] yet has led to lasting changes in practice.

Features of gender-neutral language in English may include:

Avoidance of gender-specific job titles, or caution in their use;
Avoidance of the use of man and mankind to refer to humans in general;
Avoidance of the use of he, him and his when referring to a person of unspecified sex (see under Personal pronouns above).
Certain naming practices (such as the use of Mrs and Miss to distinguish married and unmarried women) may also be discouraged on similar grounds. For more details and examples, see Gender neutrality in English.

© Copyright Original Source

Personally, I find it irksome. Not because I think one gender is better than the other, but because the motivation for changing hundreds of years of traditional speech seems to be to make sure everyone knows how PC you are. As if changing the gender of words will actually make a difference in how females are perceived. It seems to me far more likely to further distance lowbrow blue collar types from what they perceive as hoity-toity intellectuals.

[fm93]

Then why aren't you taking this into account with your arguments?

I did.

Um, you do remember who Christ's first witnesses of His resurrection were, don't you?

Yes, they were women. And as apologists like Craig and Habermas have repeatedly told us, this was significant because of how patriarchal that society apparently was back then. I mean, their main argument in mentioning this is that the gospels should be counted as historically trustworthy on this point because the idea of women being witnesses of something as profound as a resurrection would've fit the criterion of embarrassment.

No, that's not "the idea", that's your idea which is refuted by what Jesus actually said and did. He didn't just correct a few things "by example", but often flipped even messianic expectations on their head. A warrior king that was human was what was expected, what happened was God incarnate who was crucified for the sins of the world.

That doesn't refute what I said, since by including the word "just" you acknowledge that Jesus' life encompasses what I said. Additionally, there wasn't a fixed set of Messianic expectations that everyone interpreted the same way.

As for your last question in that paragraph, yes, He would be incarnated as a man. He still had to undo the curse of sin brought on us by Adam. Again, this is far more about roles, and how God wanted to reveal Himself to mankind, not what mankind expected of God, or was used to.

Hmm...it's worth pointing out that if we take the Genesis story as a completely literal account, technically Eve was the first to eat the forbidden fruit. It did strike me as odd that Paul nevertheless says Adam is the one through whom sin entered the world. But anyhow, presupposing that the first few Genesis chapters literally happened...what do you believe would've happened if God had created Eve first, and Adam had been created from her rib, and Eve was the one linked to the introduction of sin? Would Jesus still have become incarnate as a man?

You would need to give an exact quote, and context for me to believe this. Every single time I have seen someone call God "Mother" it's always some kind of New Age hippie, or some kind of radical feminist who is unwilling to call God by the title He has revealed Himself as.

Well, these people also often refer to God as a Father. They switch it up from time to time.

[Cow Poke]

It's deliberately done in academia to show support or solidarity for the feminist perspective.

Yup.

Wikipedia has a decent breakdown on why it's become so popular within the last few decades.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English

Gender neutrality in English became a growing area of interest among academics during Second Wave Feminism, when the work of structuralist linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, and his theories on semiotics, became more well known in academic circles. By the 1960s and 1970s, post-structuralist theorists, particularly in France, brought wider attention to gender-neutrality theory, and the concept of supporting gender equality through conscious changes to language. Feminists analyzing the English language put forward their own theories about the power of language to create and enforce gender determinism and the marginalization of the feminine. Debates touched on such issues as changing the term "stewardess" to the gender-neutral "flight attendant", "fireman" to "fire fighter", "mailman" to "mail carrier", and so on. At the root of this contentiousness may have been feminists' backlash against the English language's shift from "grammatical gender" to "natural gender" during the early Modern era[13] coinciding with the spread of institutional prescriptive grammar rules in English schools. These theories have been challenged by some researchers, with attention given to additional possible social, ethnic, economic, and cultural influences on language and gender.[14] The impact on mainstream language has been limited,[15] yet has led to lasting changes in practice.

Features of gender-neutral language in English may include:

Avoidance of gender-specific job titles, or caution in their use;
Avoidance of the use of man and mankind to refer to humans in general;
Avoidance of the use of he, him and his when referring to a person of unspecified sex (see under Personal pronouns above).
Certain naming practices (such as the use of Mrs and Miss to distinguish married and unmarried women) may also be discouraged on similar grounds. For more details and examples, see Gender neutrality in English.

© Copyright Original Source

Personally, I find it irksome. Not because I think one gender is better than the other, but because the motivation for changing hundreds of years of traditional speech seems to be to make sure everyone knows how PC you are. As if changing the gender of words will actually make a difference in how females are perceived. It seems to me far more likely to further distance lowbrow blue collar types from what they perceive as hoity-toity intellectuals.

And I'm really weary of all the drug commercials on TV where the guy (or woman) says, "So I asked my doctor, and SHE said...."

Yes, we are well aware there are female doctors! From the commercials, you'd guess they were in the vast majority.

[Cow Poke]

Because English doesn't have a gender neutral pronoun for persons.

But it DOES have ways of easily getting around that. As I demonstrated.

Why is the feminine pronoun gratuitous? We use the masculine pronoun all the time in such situations. ("If you're going to get someone to do the work for you, he better do a good job.")

So, when are we going to change "mankind" to ... um... wait, I got this... I remember my secular humanist manifesto --- HUMANKIND!

[Adrift]

And I'm really weary of all the drug commercials on TV where the guy (or woman) says, "So I asked my doctor, and SHE said...."

Yes, we are well aware there are female doctors! From the commercials, you'd guess they were in the vast majority.

Ah. I'm not familiar with those commercials. One of the joys of cutting the cable cord.

[Adrift]

So, when are we going to change "mankind" to ... um... wait, I got this... I remember my secular humanist manifesto --- HUMANKIND!

But, huMANkind still has "man" in it. Maybe perSONkind? no, that won't work either. Peoplekind?

[Cow Poke]

But, huMANkind still has "man" in it. Maybe perSONkind? no, that won't work either. Peoplekind?

[Cerebrum123]

I did.

Not the part I meant, but I'm thinking it's because I wasn't clear enough. What I meant there is that Jesus didn't mind, and more likely intended to flip things on their heads. He didn't teach or do things because "they were used to it", or because of the expectations of the people of the time.

That doesn't refute what I said, since by including the word "just" you acknowledge that Jesus' life encompasses what I said. Additionally, there wasn't a fixed set of Messianic expectations that everyone interpreted the same way.

It refutes the idea that He would just leave something be left the way it was because either 1) people were used to it, or 2) because people were expecting Him to act a certain way. Which is what much of your argument boils down to.

True, but there were several things that were expected by the major groups at the time. A warrior king from the line of David was one of the most popular. Another big expectation was that they would be freed from the oppressive Roman rule.

Hmm...it's worth pointing out that if we take the Genesis story as a completely literal account, technically Eve was the first to eat the forbidden fruit. It did strike me as odd that Paul nevertheless says Adam is the one through whom sin entered the world.

Adam was instructed directly by God to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve was not, and it looks like Adam even added to what God commanded ( the part where she says "and you must not touch it"). Adam had not excuse, Eve at most, did not have 100% accurate information. Eve was deceived by the serpent. Adam did have 100% accurate information, and still disobeyed regardless.

But anyhow, presupposing that the first few Genesis chapters literally happened...what do you believe would've happened if God had created Eve first, and Adam had been created from her rib, and Eve was the one linked to the introduction of sin? Would Jesus still have become incarnate as a man?

Unless what man and woman were was changed drastically, then IMO Jesus would still have been born male, and God still be the Father. They both would have had the same role, and Jesus still would have been able to defeat sin(living a perfect life, and suffering the penalty of sin). You would need to change the way biology itself is in addition to a few patriarch's genders.

Well, these people also often refer to God as a Father. They switch it up from time to time.

They are in a distinct minority. Except for your example every time I have heard someone use feminine pronouns for God they are obviously trying to make a god in their own image.

[Sam]

But it DOES have ways of easily getting around that. As I demonstrated.



So, when are we going to change "mankind" to ... um... wait, I got this... I remember my secular humanist manifesto --- HUMANKIND!

So instead of simply interchangeably using masculine and feminine pronouns for gender non-specific persons, one should just re-word sentences so as to reference the object instead of the subject. Because reasons.

[Jedidiah]

Because English doesn't have a gender neutral pronoun for persons.

Why is the feminine pronoun gratuitous? We use the masculine pronoun all the time in such situations. ("If you're going to get someone to do the work for you, he better do a good job.")

He is the gender neutral pronoun in English. Just as man is the gender neutral term for human beings. We speak English.

[Cow Poke]

So instead of simply interchangeably using masculine and feminine pronouns for gender non-specific persons, one should just re-word sentences so as to reference the object instead of the subject.

No, just use "he", which has long been understood to be universal for "whoever". Only a moron would think "he", in a general statement, means ONLY "he".

Dictionary.com
He
pronoun, nominative he, possessive his, objective him; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them.
1. the male person or animal being discussed or last mentioned; that male.
2. anyone (without reference to sex); that person: He who hesitates is lost.

I supposed you would advocate that "every other time" that one used the phrase "He who hesitates is lost", one should insert "She" instead?

[Paprika]

There's a fairly substantial difference between being the one true God and telling people they can go on worshiping false gods, and not having a gender but allowing people of differing cultures and contexts to mentally conceive of you in whichever gender terms make the most sense to them.

The important similarity that you're determined to ignore is that you don't deny essential aspects of God just to suit the culture.

[Paprika]

If anything, I'm recognizing that God exists outside of any particular time, place, or culture and so demanding that God be classified in any particular way is demanding that everyone adapt to a particular time, place or culture.

Nah, you're just demanding that people adapt to contemporary postmodernism, especially of the egalitarian bent - "there's no important intrinsic difference between male and female!"

[Sam]

No, just use "he", which has long been understood to be universal for "whoever". Only a moron would think "he", in a general statement, means ONLY "he".

Dictionary.com
He
pronoun, nominative he, possessive his, objective him; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them.
1. the male person or animal being discussed or last mentioned; that male.
2. anyone (without reference to sex); that person: He who hesitates is lost.

I supposed you would advocate that "every other time" that one used the phrase "He who hesitates is lost", one should insert "She" instead?

"He" is obviously not gender neutral (Jed) and there's no reason that it need be universal (CP). In fact, there's good reason to not treat the masculine as the default. So if someone wants to continue using the masculine pronoun, they should do so without someone getting in a snit. If someone wants to use the feminine pronoun, they should do so without someone getting in a snit. If someone want's to use them interchangeably, same thing. The people hung up on using only one or the other are the ones with the problem, in my opinion.