But I am a human being who has X and Y chromosomes that physically make me masculine. Thus, I am definitively a man and not a woman, and this applies no matter where I go. God, on the other hand, is spirit and has no sex. And again, I'm not saying the Hebrews and eventually the Jews throughout the Abrahamic lineage should've referred to God as female if God self-presented as masculine to their culture. I'm wondering if God might've self-presented differently to a different culture.
A better example might be how I have an English name that I ask people to call me when I'm interacting with English-speakers, and a Chinese name that I ask people to call me when I'm interacting with Chinese-speakers. It wouldn't make much sense for me to ask people who only speak English to call me a Chinese name that they can't pronounce or write, would it?
This puzzles me - if we were talking about a human self identifying as male when they are physically female, I suspect you'd be advocating that we accept the self identification. But when God, Who is the only one Who truly knows how gender does or does not apply to Himself, identifies as male, you argue that it should be up to the observer to choose the designation.
This puzzles me - if we were talking about a human self identifying as male when they are physically female, I suspect you'd be advocating that we accept the self identification. But when God, Who is the only one Who truly knows how gender does or does not apply to Himself, identifies as male, you argue that it should be up to the observer to choose the designation.
Why?
That's interesting... yeah, XY chromosomes don't matter if one "gender identifies" as a female.....
Good point!
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Because English doesn't have a gender neutral pronoun for persons.
...
Actually, you can use 'one' as a third person gender neutral pronoun. As long as you are referring collectively it is also acceptable to use 'they/them'. Otherwise, the correct third person neutral pronoun is 'it'.
Incidentally, gender only occurs in the third person in English. We think of 'it' as having to do with things because until very recently no one considered a neutral gender having existence - there was no reason for 'it' to refer to any creature having gender. If we allow the idea of a neutral gender having existence then there's really no valid reason not to use 'it' seeing as it is the correct form and the impersonal connotation is purely cultural.
If I recall, there are several passages in scripture when 'God' deliberately uses feminine specific language.El Shaddai, mother hen and so on. So it's not completely one way.
If I recall, there are several passages in scripture when 'God' deliberately uses feminine specific language.El Shaddai, mother hen and so on. So it's not completely one way.
Yeah, that was kinda discussed in the thread while you were traipsing about the States.
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
This puzzles me - if we were talking about a human self identifying as male when they are physically female, I suspect you'd be advocating that we accept the self identification. But when God, Who is the only one Who truly knows how gender does or does not apply to Himself, identifies as male, you argue that it should be up to the observer to choose the designation.
Why?
Not "should," but "can"--I'm wondering if there's anything inherently wrong with it, especially if God had hypothetically appeared to a long-matriarchal society. Might God have identified in more female terms if a matriarchal society had been chosen for the covenant, rather than Abraham's lineage?
Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
Not "should," but "can"--I'm wondering if there's anything inherently wrong with it, especially if God had hypothetically appeared to a long-matriarchal society. Might God have identified in more female terms if a matriarchal society had been chosen for the covenant, rather than Abraham's lineage?
No, not 'can' but 'should'. Ability is not at issue - any idiot 'can' rename something if they want to. The issue is should - should you irreverently change what has clearly been established just because you can or want to?
Hypotheticals are of no use here - God could have self identified as a pink unicorn cucumber (and even have made it make actual sense) but He didn't. If He had wished He could have changed the society to matriarchal (being omnipotent has its advantages) but He didn't. He self identifies as male and self refers in the masculine. To remake the reference is inherently disrespectful and inappropriate. On those two grounds alone it is inherently wrong.
"He" is obviously not gender neutral (Jed) and there's no reason that it need be universal (CP).
Unless you want to go with the historical usage of the English language and with the dictionary definitions.
Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
If I recall, there are several passages in scripture when 'God' deliberately uses feminine specific language.El Shaddai...
It was always my understanding that El Shaddai meant something like "the many breasted one", but apparently the latest scholarly opinion on this has moved away from that view and towards the view that it refers to mountains, so God of the Mountains, or El the Mountain one (see Day, Hamilton, Hess).
In fact, as John Day puts it (Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan), "A standpoint occasionally supported by modern scholars connects it with the Hebrew word 'breast', but since Shaddai was a masculine deity this is far-fetched."
It was always my understanding that El Shaddai meant something like "the many breasted one", but apparently the latest scholarly opinion on this has moved away from that view and towards the view that it refers to mountains, so God of the Mountains, or El the Mountain one (see Day, Hamilton, Hess).
In fact, as John Day puts it (Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan), "A standpoint occasionally supported by modern scholars connects it with the Hebrew word 'breast', but since Shaddai was a masculine deity this is far-fetched."
Just thought that was interesting.
That was an interesting thought.
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment