|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is there any deeper theological meaning to using gendered language for God?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I am talking about using the male pronoun "He" for God in general and for God the Father, as well as the male-genderedness of the word "Father" for God (I know some people have their own female pronoun theories about the Holy Spirit and I don't want to go into them here). This thread is also not arguing about Jesus being anything other than male and a "He."
This thread is also not about whether we may or should use gender neutral language for God, or about whether we occasionally may or should use female pronouns for God or the term "Mother" for God.
Rather, I am asking whether, for those who believe that people God must only call God "He" and "Father" in official prayers/doctrine, etc., this is only in following Jesus' words or to Scripture in general, or in following the Tradition of the Church, or whether, rather than following an example that you have to follow whether or not there is any reason for it, there really is an underlying theological reason for calling God "He" and "Father."
Obviously I am asking this since God (aside from the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity) transcends gender and is incorporeal, or at least that is what I thought.
Historical explanations of patriarchal societies preferring certain language or of YHWH being originally a male rain God are irrelevant, since they have nothing to do with who the One True God really is. I also do not find useful for this discussion the explanation that it makes more sense to call God the Father of Jesus since Jesus had a biological human mother (and hence the other parent involved in His conception should be thought of as a Father as the male complement to Mary's motherhood, although Mary herself is not divine and God the Father is not human or male). That explanation shows why male and paternal language for God is more convenient given Christian history and the narrative of the Incarnation, but it does not really explain if there is any real theological meaning to calling God "He" and a "Father."
So if you are a person who only calls God "He" and "Father" when it comes to the gender of pronouns and parental relationship terms, what does this mean about your theology? What is it about God that requires Him to be referred to with male pronouns and addressed as a male parent? What is it about God that makes female pronouns and addressing God as a female parent less appropriate? (Note: saying "Jesus/Scripture said we should" or "Jesus called God Father" or "Church Tradition has always done it" is not really saying anything about God - it's only saying why God should be referred to with such language.) I'm looking for an explanation, if any exists, that actually says something about God. Maybe there isn't any and isn't supposed to be any. But it strikes me as odd that I don't know of any.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Best way to refer to God is God.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
There's something in C S Lewis, in That Hideous Strength, to the effect (if I remember correctly) that God is so overwhelmingly masculine that the whole of humanity is feminine in comparison. I suppose if you believed that (I don't at all) you would have to refer to God as "he" and "him".
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
I am someone who chooses to refer to God using male-gendered language, although I have no problem with other people using female-gendered language, and I often adopt someone else's approach when I respond to something they say. And while I do choose to use male-gendered language in large part because I want to follow biblical precedent, I also do so for theological reasons. I also believe that the same theological reasons are ultimately behind the biblical use of male-gendered language.
However, as you point out, God transcends gender and I firmly believe that there is nothing inherent in God that could properly be termed masculine or feminine. The theological reasons I refer to have to do with how we all, male and female, ideally relate to God, and so these reasons say nothing about the nature of God, only something about what I believe about our own nature.
Of course, in order to have theological reasons for male-gendered language, one needs some sort of explicit theology of gender, and the church I subscribe to has a lot of theology about the nature of gender. But it does not have any explicit theology about the link between that and male-gendered language to refer to God, so that part is just personal speculation on my part. Without getting into the details regarding our theology of gender, I will say that it is based on the idea that God is the source of all life and gender only applies to the way in which we receive that life - one way with one gender and a complementary way with the other gender. So as the source of both genders, God can be accurately be described as transcending gender.
However, when it comes to how we each relate to God in the ideal case, I think there are two aspects or modes of that relationship. One is when we face God, so to speak, by thinking about him and about becoming closer to him. The other is when we face away from God and toward other people by thinking not so much about God as from God, and about how to use the life we receive from God to help others become closer to him and experience his blessings. In the former mode, we see God as outside of us as a distinct person and we notice the distance between us and God. In the latter mode, we feel God's life inside us and notice the distance between us and our neighbor.
To my way of thinking, based on my theology of gender, it is appropriate for us to think of God as being masculine in the former mode, as a male person outside us. But while it can be appropriate to think of God as feminine in the latter mode, we are not focussing our attention directly on God in that mode so much as focussing it on our interactions with other people, so there is no corresponding sense of God as a female person outside us, but more as a female influence within our own mind. The end result is that I refer to God as a male, but without believing it has anything to do with the nature of God, and without believing that God is somehow limited to being masculine. Instead, it reflects my beliefs about the difference between our thinking about God vs. our living from God.
Sorry to be so abstract, but it's difficult for me to summarize so much in a single post.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Best way to refer to God is God.
I thought that till last week I had to Read Jonah 3:1-10 and verse 10 had me really scrambling
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
quote:
I thought that till last week I had to Read Jonah 3:1-10 and verse 10 had me really scrambling
What version did you use???? Looked in nearest Bible to hand (Good News) and it doesn't seem any different from the overwhelmingly masculine bias usual to that version.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
From a Trinitarian point of view, perhaps we should refer to God as 'They', and address Them as You (plural).
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
This then is how you should pray: Our Father
I think I'll follow the advice of the One who knew the Father best ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Thanks, W Hyatt, for addressing my question.
It seems like the other explanations that I have heard people give before: that a father's way of relating to offspring is authority from a distance, whereas a mother's way is within the context of our emotions and relationships. Or, put another way, that men in general are outwardly-focused on glory and honor, what have you, and that women are inwardly focused on relationships and compassion and intimacy. Finally, which you may have hinted at but perhaps not, there is the explanation that fathers conceive children by emitting sperm from a separate body, whereas mothers conceive within their own bodies, so paternal creation is linked to Theist creation from a being outside the world whereas maternal creation is linked to Pantheist creation that comes from the world itself - so to be good theists and not worship Mother goddesses like those evil Canaanites with their sacrificing of babies we need to have our One True God be referred to as Male.
So it seems that in order to have a theological basis to calling God "He" and "Father" you have to have a strong theology of gender complementarity for humans. Do any Christians who are pretty much gender egalitarians when it comes to humans insist on only calling God "He" and "Father" and believe that there is an actual theological explanation for doing so (rather than just following the example of Jesus, Scripture, and Tradition)? Because, the problem is, I am pretty much a gender egalitarian, but I'm aware of quite a few egalitarians who stick to male references to God, and these are people who do a lot of critical thinking, so I think they must have asked themselves if there is any deeper theological understanding they can have of why they do so.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
quote:
I thought that till last week I had to Read Jonah 3:1-10 and verse 10 had me really scrambling
What version did you use???? Looked in nearest Bible to hand (Good News) and it doesn't seem any different from the overwhelmingly masculine bias usual to that version.
I change to gender-neutral God-language on my feet/at my lectern.
For the record, I was reading from the NRSV (doesn't everybody in public?)
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I don't place much theological meaning on the gender used for God, not only because our sources are mostly patriarchal societies but because our linguistic heritage is often not gender-neutral.
In other words, it's not just God that is 'he' by default. There are any number of other contexts where the tradition of English and other languages is to choose 'he' as the default position. Think of the vast number of words where, if there's a male and female version of a concept, the male one is the default. Even "god" and "goddess" illustrate this. We've made acting gender-neutral by calling everyone "actors", not by calling everyone "actresses".
Maleness as the default is all over the place. God as a spiritual being isn't designated male because spiritual beings are inherently male. Spiritual beings are designated male because we designate most things as male unless a specific reason arises to designate it female.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
I've probably said this before on the Ship, but I used to always call God "He" despite being egalitarian about gender. I just liked to use the words I'd been raised using, and I knew I understood that God wasn't really a guy.
Then my (then) three year old daughter asked me why the people in the stories and songs are always male. We'd just sung Baa Baa Black Sheep, and a couple others that use males although there is no characterization. I hadn't realized that although I don't take gendered language very seriously, it does influence others, including my little girl who needs to know that she was made in God's image as much as anyone else.
[ 30. January 2015, 15:06: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Maleness as the default is all over the place. God as a spiritual being isn't designated male because spiritual beings are inherently male. Spiritual beings are designated male because we designate most things as male unless a specific reason arises to designate it female.
This is the reason-- and in my view, the only reason-- I will often use male-gendered language for God in public teaching/preaching. Because, for the reasons noted above, female-gendered language draws so much attention to itself. Which in and of itself is not bad-- I, too, believe God transcends gender (or incorporates all gender), and that's an important message to be communicated. So, if that is the point of the sermon/talk-- the "femaleness as well as maleness" of God-- then, yes, by all means, use female pronouns. But if your point at that moment is anything else, IMHO, using female-gendered language will insure that your point is never heard simply because the "she" you just uttered is all anyone hears. Even if they agree with the "femaleness" of God, it's still so startling in our particular cultural context it's all that will be heard, all anyone will remember is "the preacher thinks God is female". They may think that's cool or offensive; helpful or heretical, but it's all they'll remember.
The earlier suggestion to just refer to God as "God" works well for more formal communication-- especially written communication. When I have the time to sit and work with my language, to rearrange word order and utilize synonyms so it's not too repetitive, I can write about God without using pronouns in a way that's not so obtrusive that it draws attention away from the main point, and yet also isn't so stilted that it makes God an impersonal object to be analyzed abstractly. But in oral communication I find that impossible to do in a way that is natural and won't draw focus.
[ 30. January 2015, 15:15: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
We do have a problem in English in that we don't have singular personal pronouns which are not gendered. Nor did the Greek in which the NT is written; in fact its nouns are gendered too (I can't speak for other ancient languages).
But I believe that there may be some languages which do have equivalent personal pronouns for "him", "her" and "unspecified". They would pose an interesting question for Liturgists and Bible Translators!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
It seems like the other explanations that I have heard people give before ...
I can understand why it would seem like other explanations you have heard, and I sympathize with your reaction even though the kinds of reasoning you recount are unfamiliar to me. Gender equality/egalitarianism is a good standard for judging such explanations, including mine. My primary purpose was to provide an example of male-gendered language that is based on theology, but not theology about the nature of God. A theologically based choice to refer to God as male does not necessarily imply a belief that gender concepts can be applied to God.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
For the record, I was reading from the NRSV (doesn't everybody in public?)
Not in my practice, nor in my experience. I can't remember when I last heard the NRSV read.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
So everyone is in agreement that unless someone believes that there is a theological significance to gender complementarity and gender roles for humans, that the gender of the language we use for God (irrespective of the gender of God) has no theological significance about God's nature or "His" relationship to humanity and creation other than being in accordance with Jesus', Scriptural, and Traditional standards, as well as with the linguistic, historical, narrative, social, etc., structures of biblical times down through to the present?
I'm not that interested in explaining why people have referred to God with male terms - that's pretty obvious - or even why they continue to do so today. I'm interested in seeing how anyone explains doing so with reference to God's nature or the relationship between God and humanity/creation - especially if someone is a gender egalitarian. Are there no such explanations unless someone really believes in gender complementarity theology for human beings and roles in human relationships/society/the church?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I did have a friend years ago who insisted all persons of the trinity are male, God the Father is of course male because you don't call anyone but a male "father," and therefore men are more God-like than women, which is why it is right for males to dominate women and wrong for women to teach or have jobs etc.
I don't know if his church taught this male God, I do know they taught subordination of women, maybe he just put that lower position of women together with the male language of the Bible for God to come to his own conclusion women are less spiritual than men.
As to male language being the default, often it is not instinctively heard that way when maleness is explicit in the "default." In High School in the 60s we had a lot of after school clubs, one friend wanted to run for chairman in the math club, the guys said she can't: the word is chairman, only a man can be a chair-man. She appealed to the faculty adviser for the club, that (male) teacher agreed the word is explicitly male and therefore no female could run for that office.
The other problem with explicitly male words used as default, males know they are included, females have to take a step back and figure out if they are included or excluded, it's not automatically clear.
As a girl I asked my mommy why the Bible is written only about men and to men. (Church never mention any of the women in the Bible except Mary briefly at Christmas). I understood the whole of Christianity to be male - male Godhead, male angels (with swords), male only church history, males only in Bible stories, males only addressed in the letters. That women are to see themselves included in all this is far from instinctively obvious!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But I believe that there may be some languages which do have equivalent personal pronouns for "him", "her" and "unspecified". They would pose an interesting question for Liturgists and Bible Translators!
In Finnish third person singular and plural are neutral. Whether the person referred to is male or female can only be determined from context.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are there no such explanations unless someone really believes in gender complementarity theology for human beings and roles in human relationships/society/the church?
Your request is confusing. Gender equality is not usually taken to the extreme of denying all differences in biology and physiology of men and women, and forbidding different treatment even where such differences are clearly relevant. Because, well, that would be 1) stupid, and 2) helps nobody, certainly not women.
But then you rendered W Hyatt's suggestion yourself in terms of just such a clear difference in biology, namely the process of impregnation. Ejaculation here vs. becoming pregnant there, etc. Gender equality would not deny, I reckon, that these sexual functions are different in men and women and have consequences that also require different treatment. Nine months after I fathered my son, my wife certainly was adamant about some accommodations of her state.
So, you have an explanation that best I can see is compatible with gender equality, since it makes an analogy to sexual functions not gender roles. Why is that not good enough for you? And if you are asking for an explanation of gender specificity concerning God which makes no reference whatsoever to any actual or perceived differences between men and women, then isn't that simply an absurd request? It's like saying: Here's a picture of a black square on a black background with its edges marked in black. It sure is egalitarian black, we have achieved complete equality of the fore- and background. Now over there we see a red cube. Please explain why squareness is attributed to that red cube, but exclusively by pointing to our egalitarian black square over here. There's a problem with that request, right?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Are there no such explanations unless someone really believes in gender complementarity theology for human beings and roles in human relationships/society/the church?
Your request is confusing. Gender equality is not usually taken to the extreme of denying all differences in biology and physiology of men and women, and forbidding different treatment even where such differences are clearly relevant. Because, well, that would be 1) stupid, and 2) helps nobody, certainly not women.
But then you rendered W Hyatt's suggestion yourself in terms of just such a clear difference in biology, namely the process of impregnation. Ejaculation here vs. becoming pregnant there, etc. Gender equality would not deny, I reckon, that these sexual functions are different in men and women and have consequences that also require different treatment. Nine months after I fathered my son, my wife certainly was adamant about some accommodations of her state.
So, you have an explanation that best I can see is compatible with gender equality, since it makes an analogy to sexual functions not gender roles. Why is that not good enough for you? And if you are asking for an explanation of gender specificity concerning God which makes no reference whatsoever to any actual or perceived differences between men and women, then isn't that simply an absurd request? It's like saying: Here's a picture of a black square on a black background with its edges marked in black. It sure is egalitarian black, we have achieved complete equality of the fore- and background. Now over there we see a red cube. Please explain why squareness is attributed to that red cube, but exclusively by pointing to our egalitarian black square over here. There's a problem with that request, right?
Okay, so as someone who believes that gender and sexual differences do have a significance in terms of people's religious roles, do you believe that there is any meaning to referring to God as "He" and "Father" with regard to God's nature or God's relationship with humankind and creation? If so, how would you explain it?
My questions are always unclear and fraught with poor thinking. I'm not a very intelligent person, though I put on airs of being one, and I'm not getting any smarter unfortunately.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Okay, so as someone who believes that gender and sexual differences do have a significance in terms of people's religious roles, do you believe that there is any meaning to referring to God as "He" and "Father" with regard to God's nature or God's relationship with humankind and creation? If so, how would you explain it?
I would explain it quite simply as a projection of our experience of father and mother, and of being father or mother. Now, individual experiences of course vary, sometimes drastically so. But language reflects a kind of average over many, many people and so we get the average projection. And I have to say, the kind of God I see in the OT but also in the NT simply does not feel like "mum" to me. Like "dad", maybe. I can make that connection.
Let's take a scenario, with two reactions. Kid falls and skins knee, nothing big, just painful in the moment. Both parents are available, which one does it run to? Reaction of one parent "Oh, come here. Let me blow on it to make it better. There, it's getting better already." Reaction of the other parent: "Hey, it's OK. Look, it's not even bleeding. Really, come on. Let's grab that ball you were after." Who do you think the child ran to in the first place, mum or dad? Who do you think said what? Yes, I know. Hackneyed, stereotyped, what have you. And yes, not always everywhere, etc. And yes, you can find a tribe in the Amazonian rain forest where this totally doesn't work. But still, it is a reflection of my experience, and I reckon doubly and triply so of some person living in ancient Israel.
Now, take some interaction of God and man from the bible. I don't really care which... For me, nine times out of ten it has a lot more "dad feel" than "mum feel". And not just because there are masculine pronouns. And not only when God orders warfare or whatever. It's not necessarily what is being done, but also how it is done. Both parents in my lame scenario above actually tried to do the same thing, make the child get over its temporary pain, partly by distraction. But not in exactly the same way. There is "mum or dad" feel to this. And I think there can be that in religion as well.
Now, for me the God of Christianity is clearly "dad", not "mum". That does not mean that he has no "mum" features. Just like I can and have blown on ouchies to make them better... Still, to me calling the Christian God "her" or "mother" or whatever is actually intellectual artifice. It's making a theological point that may be true, but most of the time does not need to be made. At the emotional level, I think it is plain false though.
(And FWIW, while it is false to say that Catholics have made the BVM into a goddess, I think it is correct to say that in Catholicism the BVM has filled the emotional "mum" slot, practically speaking. Personally, I think that that is a much better idea than kitsch-hippie-best-buds Jesus, who I think in other places has to step in to fill the emotional "mum" gap.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
A good argument can be made that the Holy Spirit should be referred to at least in a gender neutral way. The word for Spirit of God in the OT is "ruha" which is feminine. (She hovers over the deep or broads over it). The word for spirit in the NT is pnuema which is gender neutral.
Why does it make a difference how we refer to God? I think if we are referring to God as "he" all the time, we miss the nuances of the original languages and the stories of Jesus (God is like a woman who loses a coin or a hen gathers her chicks).
I agree based on the Lords prayer Jesus encourages us to call God Abba, but there is also the feminine side of God as well.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's take a scenario, with two reactions. Kid falls and skins knee, nothing big, just painful in the moment. Both parents are available, which one does it run to? Reaction of one parent "Oh, come here. Let me blow on it to make it better. There, it's getting better already." Reaction of the other parent: "Hey, it's OK. Look, it's not even bleeding. Really, come on. Let's grab that ball you were after." Who do you think the child ran to in the first place, mum or dad? Who do you think said what? Yes, I know. Hackneyed, stereotyped, what have you. And yes, not always everywhere, etc. And yes, you can find a tribe in the Amazonian rain forest where this totally doesn't work. But still, it is a reflection of my experience, and I reckon doubly and triply so of some person living in ancient Israel.
Now, take some interaction of God and man from the bible. I don't really care which... For me, nine times out of ten it has a lot more "dad feel" than "mum feel". And not just because there are masculine pronouns. And not only when God orders warfare or whatever. It's not necessarily what is being done, but also how it is done. Both parents in my lame scenario above actually tried to do the same thing, make the child get over its temporary pain, partly by distraction. But not in exactly the same way.
I'm not at all sure that's the case. I think what you may be experiencing here is a form of confirmation bias, and that it actually does have more to do with the masculine pronouns that you realize. The fact that we use masculine pronouns does affect the way we subconsciously "see" God. And the fact that we tend to "see" God as male, no matter how much we may consciously believe God is not male, carries over to the way we read all those stories in the Bible. So you notice all the ones where God is responding in what seems like a "male parent" way ("walk it off" or whatever). You're aware, as you said, that there are some "female parent" interactions as well, but they don't register in your consciousness as much-- in fact, probably only when the language is explicit ("mother hen"). But the fact is, if we went through and really examined each and every interaction with the divine in Scripture (which would take us years) along your rubric, I'm not at all sure that we wouldn't find every bit as many "female parent" ones as "male parent" ones.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, for me the God of Christianity is clearly "dad", not "mum". That does not mean that he has no "mum" features. Just like I can and have blown on ouchies to make them better... Still, to me calling the Christian God "her" or "mother" or whatever is actually intellectual artifice. It's making a theological point that may be true, but most of the time does not need to be made. At the emotional level, I think it is plain false though.
I think the "intellectual artifice" is, again, just because of what we are used to. I think you're describing something similar to what I mentioned earlier, that when you use a female pronoun for God in teaching/ preaching it is so startling that, regardless of whether your audience agrees or disagrees with your presumptions about God, it tends to be all you notice. There is nothing "artificial" about that, assuming you do, in fact, believe God is not exclusively male. It isn't intellectual artifice, it's intellectual honesty. But because we have such a strongly embedded custom of speaking of God in exclusively male terms, it feels/sounds "artificial" simply because it is so unusual. It would be like wearing a huge brass nose ring with a bell on it while reading the Scripture on Sunday morning. It's not wrong, it's not immoral, it's not heretical-- but might be unusual enough that it's all anyone notices.
As I said before, I've found that reason enough for me to use male pronouns in informal preaching/ teaching so as not to distract from whatever point I'm trying to make. But that doesn't mean my use of male pronouns is less "artificial" or more "natural". In fact, it really is more artificial, since I am adopting a gendered language I don't really believe in service of whatever other point I'm making.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I did have a friend years ago who insisted all persons of the trinity are male, God the Father is of course male because you don't call anyone but a male "father," and therefore men are more God-like than women, which is why it is right for males to dominate women and wrong for women to teach or have jobs etc.
As good a reason as any why we (including myself in that "we") ought to re-examine our ingrained habit of male gendered language for God.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I have no problem with Ingo personally finding God to equate with his experience of "Father". I would observe, though, that I know of at least one case of a person who was deeply put off Christianity by the equation of God with a "Father" because his own experience of a father was so horrible.
It was his mother who had provided all of the care and stability in his life, and his father who had provided all the horror. He had no interest in acquiring a second, spiritual Father.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But the fact is, if we went through and really examined each and every interaction with the divine in Scripture (which would take us years) along your rubric, I'm not at all sure that we wouldn't find every bit as many "female parent" ones as "male parent" ones.
I think the actual problem there is quite simply how we would "really examine" this.
Just about the only semi-objective way I can think of is to rewrite all these interactions in a non-spiritual and non-gendered way. Then invite a lot of scripture-ignorant test subjects (who wouldn't recognise the rewrite for what it is). And then let them categorise the texts as either having a female or male actor.
Anyway, let's listen:
And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.'""
OK, mum, I will tell that to pharaoh.
Really?
And he said: "The LORD roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem; the pastures of the shepherds mourn, and the top of Carmel withers." Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing sledges of iron.So I will send a fire upon the house of Hazael, and it shall devour the strongholds of Ben-hadad. I will break the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitants from the Valley of Aven, and him that holds the scepter from Beth-eden; and the people of Syria shall go into exile to Kir," says the LORD.
Sure, mum, just calm down a bit.
Really?
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Thanks, mum, I always wanted to have some pets.
Really?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Ingo, you appear to be projecting a rather unhelpful set of your own assumptions about women in general and mothers in particular onto the text, and onto God.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Pick another 3 passages out of the myriad of passages in the Bible about God speaking, and you will get how he is slow to anger, abounding in love, and all that kind of mushy stuff.
This is known as selective quoting.
All you're currently doing, Ingo, is providing your version of evidence that God isn't a woman. Which would be relevant if anyone had actually said that God is a woman. They didn't.
The most anyone proposed was that God was neither human gender or included aspects of both. Providing 3 passages of God being rather fatherly completely fails to demonstrate that God is incapable of motherly behaviour.
[ 30. January 2015, 23:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But the fact is, if we went through and really examined each and every interaction with the divine in Scripture (which would take us years) along your rubric, I'm not at all sure that we wouldn't find every bit as many "female parent" ones as "male parent" ones.
I think the actual problem there is quite simply how we would "really examine" this.
Just about the only semi-objective way I can think of is to rewrite all these interactions in a non-spiritual and non-gendered way. Then invite a lot of scripture-ignorant test subjects (who wouldn't recognise the rewrite for what it is). And then let them categorise the texts as either having a female or male actor.
Yes, exactly. And there's a lot of them so it would, as I said, take years to do that.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But the fact is, if we went through and really examined each and every interaction with the divine in Scripture (which would take us years) along your rubric, I'm not at all sure that we wouldn't find every bit as many "female parent" ones as "male parent" ones.
Anyway, let's listen:
And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.'""
OK, mum, I will tell that to pharaoh.
Really?
And he said: "The LORD roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem; the pastures of the shepherds mourn, and the top of Carmel withers." Thus says the LORD: "For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing sledges of iron.So I will send a fire upon the house of Hazael, and it shall devour the strongholds of Ben-hadad. I will break the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitants from the Valley of Aven, and him that holds the scepter from Beth-eden; and the people of Syria shall go into exile to Kir," says the LORD.
Sure, mum, just calm down a bit.
Really?
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Thanks, mum, I always wanted to have some pets.
Really?
Which seems to illustrate only what I have just suggested: that when you think of biblical examples of interactions with God (of which, obviously, there would be 1000s of possibilities) the ones that come to mind are the ones where God is acting in what appears to be a male-parent sort of way. Those are the ones you notice-- probably the ones most of us notice, because it fits with the way you think of God. But again, the only way to confirm that those incidents comprise the majority of biblical depictions of God is to look not at the 3 or 4 biblical stories that come to mind, but at several 100s or a 1000 of them. Which neither of us (I assume) has the time to do right now-- even if we skipped the "objective listener" step and just attempted to do so ourselves.
But given that both of us agree that there are some stories that are more "traditional male sounding" but also some that are more "traditional female sounding" (and recognizing how culture-breaking the fact that there are any female-sounding ones would be), I think it's safe to assume there's some cultural & confirmation bias in what we notice about the overall distribution of those stories.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Pick another 3 passages out of the myriad of passages in the Bible about God speaking, and you will get how he is slow to anger, abounding in love, and all that kind of mushy stuff.
This is known as selective quoting.
or confirmation bias which I have just learned is helpfully also known as "myside bias".
[ 30. January 2015, 23:24: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which seems to illustrate only what I have just suggested: that when you think of biblical examples of interactions with God (of which, obviously, there would be 1000s of possibilities) the ones that come to mind are the ones where God is acting in what appears to be a male-parent sort of way. Those are the ones you notice-- probably the ones most of us notice, because it fits with the way you think of God.
Not really. These were more or less selected at random, clicking through an online bible. What is true though is the following: most interactions are just too short to read anything into them, at least individually. I had to hunt for paragraph-size descriptions of God so that they could speak for themselves. Furthermore, I did select against one passage, and that's maybe telling. I had the interaction of Moses with the burning bush. Now, in it Moses is told to remove his sandals because he is stepping on holy ground. I then though to myself: "I'm not going to use this, because some smart aleck is going to say that's like mum telling you to take off your shoes when you come in from the outside." Thing is, it really isn't. By context and vocabulary, also these verses do not really say "mum" to me at all. I get more a vibe of serious ancient rites, with hallowed ground, etc. I think they are pretty "dad", too. But it would be much harder to defend this. So the bias in some sense was more in finding stuff that I thought others could not deny to be "dad", rather than in me ignoring things that would be more "mum". And yes, the sample size is small. But take a look at my last example. I was actually trying to find a more "positive" example there, one where God does something "nice", to get away from simple "violent = man" equations. Well... shall we say it's not all sweetness and delight, really. And I think that's typical, too, and contributes to the feeling of "dad". There tends to be some edge in things, always.
Anyway, I'm much surer that this is so, than that I can defend it to be so. And that's because listening for vibes is not something one can nail down with crystal clear arguments and hard data. At least not without lengthy psychological studies over large groups of people, But I really do not think that this is just "confirmation bias". The only bias I felt when selecting stuff was a "need to make watertight for others bias". And that's something else.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Coming a bit late: Belle Ringer: Tell your subordinationist friend that the woman was the second version of human to be made. Adam was obviously the first, but, having had a look at how Adam turned out, God obviously made an "improved" Beta version on the second try. The males have been fighting that ever since (as one would expect. Insecurity makes one like that)
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which seems to illustrate only what I have just suggested: that when you think of biblical examples of interactions with God (of which, obviously, there would be 1000s of possibilities) the ones that come to mind are the ones where God is acting in what appears to be a male-parent sort of way. Those are the ones you notice-- probably the ones most of us notice, because it fits with the way you think of God.
Not really. These were more or less selected at random, clicking through an online bible. What is true though is the following: most interactions are just too short to read anything into them, at least individually. I had to hunt for paragraph-size descriptions of God so that they could speak for themselves.
Nothing about that process seems "random" to me. Random would be if you had some verse generator randomly choosing the passages. But in your description you are clearly reading and choosing-- that's not random. And, no matter how much you were attempting to choose impartially, the effect of confirmation bias is still at play.
Furthermore, I don't know where you get the notion that interactions with God are all too short to be analyzed. The Bible is full of chapter-length stories of interactions with God. Furthermore, if Jesus is in fact God incarnate, we've got four whole books that are nothing but interactions with God. Jesus tells us explicitly that if we want to see what God looks like, look at him. So let's start there. Start with Matt. 1 and go thru the gospels and analyze every interaction w/ Jesus. I think you're going to find a very different outcome.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Furthermore, I did select against one passage, and that's maybe telling. I had the interaction of Moses with the burning bush. Now, in it Moses is told to remove his sandals because he is stepping on holy ground. I then though to myself: "I'm not going to use this, because some smart aleck is going to say that's like mum telling you to take off your shoes when you come in from the outside." Thing is, it really isn't. By context and vocabulary, also these verses do not really say "mum" to me at all. I get more a vibe of serious ancient rites, with hallowed ground, etc. I think they are pretty "dad", too. But it would be much harder to defend this. So the bias in some sense was more in finding stuff that I thought others could not deny to be "dad", rather than in me ignoring things that would be more "mum".
Not really. It looks to me like there was as much bias in your interpretation as there was in your selection.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
". And yes, the sample size is small. But take a look at my last example
Your last example of an extraordinarily small sample size. It simply cannot be said to be representative.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, I'm much surer that this is so, than that I can defend it to be so. And that's because listening for vibes is not something one can nail down with crystal clear arguments and hard data. At least not without lengthy psychological studies over large groups of people, But I really do not think that this is just "confirmation bias". The only bias I felt when selecting stuff was a "need to make watertight for others bias". And that's something else.
Again, this exactly like confirmation bias to me. If you'd wanted to find a "female" example you would have-- there are 100s. Your talk of "vibes" is precisely what we're talking about here-- the unconscious way we "feel" about a passage/image that influences the way we read the words. IMHO the most likely explanation for the "male vibe" you feel when reading so much of Scripture is directly related to the male pronouns in the Bible and in the way we talk about God.
But way of example, I'm currently reading a devotional book-- one of those first-person journal type. I'd picked the book up randomly at a book sale, having never read anything by this author before. The author's first name happens to be one I have only known women to have, so my assumption was a "female" pov. I read 2/3 of the book envisioning every interaction in "female" terms, picturing the family scenes and other stories from that perspective. Then I happened to read the back cover and discovered the author is male. It was a bit mind-bending to go back and re-envision each story from a male pov, even though when I did so I realized there was nothing explicitly "male" or "female" about any of the stories-- he would talk about "my son" and I automatically saw him as "mom" because of his first name. As sure as you are of your "objective vibe" in reading Scripture, I'm becoming even more sure that what you are experiencing is a confirmation bias quite similar to the way I read this devotional book.
[ 31. January 2015, 14:15: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
From a Trinitarian point of view, perhaps we should refer to God as 'They', and address Them as You (plural).
Which is to completely misunderstand what 'Trinity' means.
Tell that to God, who gets quoted using first person plural a time or two.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Coming a bit late: Belle Ringer: Tell your subordinationist friend that the woman was the second version of human to be made. Adam was obviously the first, but, having had a look at how Adam turned out, God obviously made an "improved" Beta version on the second try. The males have been fighting that ever since (as one would expect. Insecurity makes one like that)
My husband likes to point out that in Gen. 2, God laments Adam's need for a "helper"-- a clear indication that men are in need of help.
You're welcome.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Furthermore, I don't know where you get the notion that interactions with God are all too short to be analyzed.
I do not know where you get the notion that I said that.
Anyway, let me be frank. I think you are arguing towards a goal set in advance. This is not the sort of topic where I can possibly fight that. Therefore I will stop here.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Furthermore, I don't know where you get the notion that interactions with God are all too short to be analyzed.
I do not know where you get the notion that I said that.
Um... from this:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
These were more or less selected at random, clicking through an online bible. What is true though is the following: most interactions are just too short to read anything into them, at least individually. I had to hunt for paragraph-size descriptions of God so that they could speak for themselves.
What did you mean by this if not that most of the interactions were too short to be analyzed???
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, let me be frank. I think you are arguing towards a goal set in advance.
And, again, frankly, I think you are suffering from a pretty severe case of confirmation bias-- which is another way of saying "arguing towards a goal set in advance."
[ 31. January 2015, 14:28: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, let's listen:
And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go. And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, and I say to you, "Let my son go that he may serve me"; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.'""
OK, mum, I will tell that to pharaoh.
Really?
Oh boy does that passage sound like my mom telling me "yes you can do it!" Helpfully arming me with suggested phrases, with a smile a kiss and a shove out the door to face whatever I felt inadequate to do that she knew I could.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What did you mean by this if not that most of the interactions were too short to be analyzed???
You said "all", not "most", above...
In addition, it is important to consider my "individually". Some sentences here or there dispersed through a paragraph do not make for good quoting. What was needed is a sizeable block of text all attributed to God.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, again, frankly, I think you are suffering from a pretty severe case of confirmation bias-- which is another way of saying "arguing towards a goal set in advance."
I get that.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Oh boy does that passage sound like my mom telling me "yes you can do it!" Helpfully arming me with suggested phrases, with a smile a kiss and a shove out the door to face whatever I felt inadequate to do that she knew I could.
Your mum is telling you to tell people that they will have to obey her ultimatums, or she will murder their kids?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What did you mean by this if not that most of the interactions were too short to be analyzed???
You said "all", not "most", above...
Respectfully, I think you are clutching at straws. Nonetheless, I will accept the correction-- "most" rather than "all". You said "most" passages re divine interactions are too short to be analyzed. And I strongly dispute that, for the reasons noted in the original post.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Oh boy does that passage sound like my mom telling me "yes you can do it!" Helpfully arming me with suggested phrases, with a smile a kiss and a shove out the door to face whatever I felt inadequate to do that she knew I could.
Your mum is telling you to tell people that they will have to obey her ultimatums, or she will murder their kids?
Well, no. But then, my dad never told me anything close to that either. Did yours???
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think it goes a little deeper and older than some of these ideas*. And may have a little less to do with theology than history, with the theology coming later. Much like the theology of capitalism was required to justify charging interest, taking slaves and becoming rich.
There's some documentation that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were viewed as male gods ejaculating water on to the fertile soil by pre-biblical peoples, and that the idea of planting male seed into women, is akin to planting seeds in the ground. So we get a earth mother and sky father. This is also why the idea that God implanted Jesus into Mary without a biological contribution from her worked in the ancient world a little better than it does today, and could also account that Jesus resembled his mother and any other kids she had. In this older version, the resemblance of a child to his/her mother is a product of the formation and growth of the male seed within the womb.
The Roman word for the chief god is Jupiter, which derives from Zeus/Deus (sky) and pater (father). The Greeks being the source for Zeus. This general idea runs through all middle-eastern and Indo-European cultures. I suspect it's probably even more general, with the First Nations peoples of Canada identifying mother earth in about the same way. I suspect it's perennial wisdom or knowledge by which I mean, common to all humans, just as pair bonds, and parent-child bonds are. What's bred in the bone will out in the flesh, or to say it modernly, it's in our programming to conceptualize it this way.
Of course we're not bound to this, and should consciously challenge the unconscious assumptive world it represents. With, I think, the most important social issue in the world today the education, empowerment of girls and women so they realize their God-given potentials.
*from memory (it's been a few decades), a good reference is History Begins at Sumer by Samuel Kramer. Which documents, among other things the lost pun of Eve (Nin-ti) being the spawn of Adam's rib (ti), with ti being a homonym for "to give life", and nin meaning woman. Thus "woman of the rib" and "woman who gives life".
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
We do have a problem in English in that we don't have singular personal pronouns which are not gendered. Nor did the Greek in which the NT is written; in fact its nouns are gendered too (I can't speak for other ancient languages).
There is the third person singular use of "they/them/their." That's been going on for hundreds of years, however much grammarians have decried it. But admittedly, I think it is only used when the person about whom one is speaking is unknown or unspecified: "If someone calls, tell them I'm at lunch and will be back at 1:30."
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I use it quite a lot ... but it tends to sound a bit contrived.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your mum is telling you to tell people that they will have to obey her ultimatums, or she will murder their kids?
Actually, on 2nd thought, this sounds a lot more stereotypically "mom" than "dad" to me. When we want an image of a parent ferociously, even violently, defending their young, it's not "papa bear" that comes to mind, but mama. About the only time I ever agreed with Sarah Palin was her famous quip about the difference between pit bulls and hockey moms (*lipstick*).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think it goes a little deeper and older than some of these ideas*. And may have a little less to do with theology than history, with the theology coming later. Much like the theology of capitalism was required to justify charging interest, taking slaves and becoming rich.
There's some documentation that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were viewed as male gods ejaculating water on to the fertile soil by pre-biblical peoples, and that the idea of planting male seed into women, is akin to planting seeds in the ground. So we get a earth mother and sky father. This is also why the idea that God implanted Jesus into Mary without a biological contribution from her worked in the ancient world a little better than it does today, and could also account that Jesus resembled his mother and any other kids she had. In this older version, the resemblance of a child to his/her mother is a product of the formation and growth of the male seed within the womb.
The Roman word for the chief god is Jupiter, which derives from Zeus/Deus (sky) and pater (father). The Greeks being the source for Zeus. This general idea runs through all middle-eastern and Indo-European cultures. I suspect it's probably even more general, with the First Nations peoples of Canada identifying mother earth in about the same way. I suspect it's perennial wisdom or knowledge by which I mean, common to all humans, just as pair bonds, and parent-child bonds are. What's bred in the bone will out in the flesh, or to say it modernly, it's in our programming to conceptualize it this way.
Of course we're not bound to this, and should consciously challenge the unconscious assumptive world it represents. With, I think, the most important social issue in the world today the education, empowerment of girls and women so they realize their God-given potentials.
*from memory (it's been a few decades), a good reference is History Begins at Sumer by Samuel Kramer. Which documents, among other things the lost pun of Eve (Nin-ti) being the spawn of Adam's rib (ti), with ti being a homonym for "to give life", and nin meaning woman. Thus "woman of the rib" and "woman who gives life".
My OP said that of course there are cultural, historical, and linguistic reasons for Judaism and Christianity referring to God using "He" and (later) "Father." I was asking whether or not there was an explanation for why people still do so today that wasn't just following the example of Jesus, Scripture, Tradition, etc. (not that that isn't a good reason), or of history, culture, language, etc, but that stemmed from some explanation of God's nature and His relationship with humankind and creation.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Have there been any theological or magisterial attempts in history to explain how God's nature and HIs relationship to humankind and creation is more like that of a male than of a female, and more like that of a father than of a mother, that is still made use of today?
Also, EVEN IF there is something about the nature of God the Father (the first Person of the Holy Trinity) and His relationship to humankind and creation, does this mean that there is also something about the Triune Godhead's nature and His relationship to us that means He (which, in Christian prayers, doctrinal statements, and other official writings, is usually referred to as "God" in general) should always be referred to as "He.?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your mum is telling you to tell people that they will have to obey her ultimatums, or she will murder their kids?
Actually, on 2nd thought, this sounds a lot more stereotypically "mom" than "dad" to me. When we want an image of a parent ferociously, even violently, defending their young, it's not "papa bear" that comes to mind, but mama. About the only time I ever agreed with Sarah Palin was her famous quip about the difference between pit bulls and hockey moms (*lipstick*).
I am suddenly reminded of an incident in a North Kent street where a man came running down the road and leapt into the local cemetery, then followed by two other men who started to beat him up. They stopped when everyone about took an interest, but the victim wouldn't let us call the police because "she" had sent them. We were left with the assumption that there was a female gang boss in the vicinity. (It was before mobiles, or he would have had no choice.) He was terrified of her. Clearly a female capable of sending people out to do harm to others - though not a good model for female characteristics for God.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Isn't it male (Father) God <-> female (Mother) Earth?
Which Islam took to interesting extremes, taking on the colour (green), plus crescent moon & star of the Earth Mother Isis (not to be confused with ISIS/ISIL)
What is also interesting is that, as was said earlier, the female was more or less written out of the bible. But the old cross-quater earth/astrological/astronomical festivals were adopted for the Christian Calendar. Which is perhaps one reason why the ability to calculate in advance the phase of the moon and the tides was part of the educational syllabus of early medieval monasteries (certainly in Wales, maybe elsewhere), and the earth mother/maze was such a common symbol in early to mid medieval churches - e.g.
Chartres
So, I don't think that the gender usage is random, or sexist in any way, and the attempt to neutralise God's gender is probably mistaken.
However, I dont think this is an argument against the existence of female bishops :-)
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
