Simple question about your god ?

seensensee

I have observed how some people refer to god as "he" or "him" which denotes a male being, how can this be ? Are the terms "she" or "it" not as applicable?

MWoods

I suppose they are. It's just that in the past men were thought of as being dominant or superior and it's kinda a tradition that stuck really.

JimiTime

seensensee wrote: »

I have observed how some people refer to god as "he" or "him" which denotes a male being, how can this be ? Are the terms "she" or "it" not as applicable?

God is referred to as Father for a start. This would indicate the masculine.

Fanny Cradock

It depends on what criteria one uses to define gender. Is maleness or femaleness based solely upon a series of physiological adoptions? Or can gender be an identification with certain emotional characteristics and role functions often associated with males and females?

Despite both OT and NT being littered with references equating God to maleness, I don't think that many would believe that God is male is the physiological sense. The reference to gender is largely metaphorical - God isn't male or female - but not without truth - God the Father fulfils roles that we would traditionally associate with maleness. It is similar to the idea that Jesus is the bridegroom and his believers are his bride. In both cases an anthropomorphic anchor is used to help the ancient Israelites and Christians of today to understand a little better God's relationship with us.

A little more info here: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-male-female.html

seensensee

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It depends on what criteria one uses to define gender. Is maleness or femaleness based solely upon a series of physiological adoptions? Or can gender be an identification with certain emotional characteristics and role functions often associated with males and females?

Despite both OT and NT being littered with references equating God to maleness, I don't think that many would believe that God is male is the physiological sense. The reference to gender is largely metaphorical - God isn't male or female - but not without truth - God the Father fulfils roles that we would traditionally associate with maleness. It is similar to the idea that Jesus is the bridegroom and his believers are his bride. In both cases an anthropomorphic anchor is used to help the ancient Israelites and Christians of today to understand a little better God's relationship with us.

A little more info here: http://www.gotquestions.org/God-male-female.html

Very well explained, cheers.

philologos

OP: I don't believe that God is either male or female.

Traditionally, people have related to God as Father, that's why people use He and Him to refer to God. As for referring to God as she and it, I'm sure you could, but I don't think it would be accepted by a majority in a Christian context.

Baggio1

Christ never referred to God as his mother,,,always as his Father in heaven,,,thats good enough for me

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

OP: I don't believe that God is either male or female.

Traditionally, people have related to God as Father, that's why people use He and Him to refer to God. As for referring to God as she and it, I'm sure you could, but I don't think it would be accepted by a majority in a Christian context.

I don't think it would be acceptable to God neither. 'It', is a very cold term, and very disrespectful. Jesus referred to HIS Father, and NOT mother etc. I think it would be very presumptuous, not to mention innaccurate and disrespectful to think that God wouldn't care if you called him 'her' or 'it'.

Callan57

I don't think she really minds how you refer to her!;)

mehfesto

Is it necessary to even want to know this?

I'm not being disrespectful, but a supreme being doesn't really need a gender. It is all powerful and given the lack of similar beings, there is no need for a gender...

What good would be derived from having testosterone/oestrogen or reproductive organs? There may be traits which can be identified as 'male' or 'female' in the bible, but they are surely out interpretation of gender roles, no?

Surely god transcends such minor affects of the human condition?

seensensee

mehfesto wrote: »

Is it necessary to even want to know this?

Surely god transcends such minor affects of the human condition?

Yes and no, it all depends on your beliefs, I as an agnostic would View god more in the likeness of the FSM.

superer234

God is though of as a man because men are created in his image, if we saw god he would look like a man.

Callan57

superer234 wrote: »

God is though of as a man because men are created in his image, if we saw god he would look like a man.

There you have it .... God did'nt create us we created God
The really important question surely is Why we felt the need?

dvae

Whats the story with Jesus? Is this the form he chose (male) when he came to earth.

Fanny Cradock

Callan57 wrote: »

There you have it .... God did'nt create us we created God
The really important question surely is Why we felt the need?

I suggest you read the charter and stop trolling this forum.

wonderfulname

superer234 wrote: »

God is though of as a man because men are created in his image, if we saw god he would look like a man.

Thats man as in mankind, i.e. humans. Legal texts refer to he but mean he/she, so references in the masculine are meaningless. At the time the bible was written the lack of biological understanding meant a father was someone who sowed the seed of life whereas a mother was a vessel, for us mortals that meant a man but for God? I would be under the impression that God is indeed as mankind, but yet above gender.

Oh and I also feel a bit disrespectful attempting to answer this question which cannot be answered but anyway..

Fanny Cradock

wonderfulname wrote: »

At the time the bible was written the lack of biological understanding

I'm sure that the Israelites had sufficient knowledge of biology to distinguish between the sexes.

wonderfulname

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sure that the Israelites had sufficient knowledge of biology to distinguish between the sexes.

Not of conception they didn't, they thought sex was literally like planting a seed, that man was the ultimate creator and woman was just a vessel for their creation. They did not know that genetically a woman contributes equally, they thought sperm was actually a little person, thats why masturbation was a big no no. Hence a father was a creator. It does not mean god is a man, it was just the understanding at the time.

nozzferrahhtoo

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't think it would be acceptable to God neither. 'It', is a very cold term, and very disrespectful.

I am not so sure. English is a Germanic language and we have lost the concept of gender in English for the most part.

To me "it" is equivalent to the German word "das" which is gender neutral both in the sexual and conversational sense. People in English often feel weird calling a baby that they do not know the sex of "it" but in German it is "Das Baby" instead of der (masculine) or die (feminine) and in fact the word for "Girl" stays neuter too with "Das" and only become "die" when you say "woman".

So I feel much more comfortable knowing German in using the word "it" in situations where many English speakers would not.

Having said all that however, the word God in German is Der Gott, which is masculine too... however in discussions about this non human intelligence, I always use the word "it" for openness reasons. In the search for ANY evidence at all to lend credence to the claims such an entity exists I do not want to preclude any evidence... and assigning too many attributes to the entity risks doing just that... including assigning a sex or gender.

For that reason I feel like I am being more open minded calling the entity "it". It is my way of saying I am open to this entity taking on any form you wish to define and being open to considering your evidence for defining it thus.

Fanny Cradock

But we're not talking about English or German. The earliest account we have about the Judeo-Christian God appears in Genesis, which was written in Hebrew. Nouns in Hebrew are either masculine or feminine. Meaning that God, or any other noun, can't be an "it".

wonderfulname

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But we're not talking about English or German. The earliest account we have about the Judeo-Christian God appears in Genesis, which was written in Hebrew. Nouns in Hebrew are either masculine or feminine. Meaning that God, or any other noun, can't be an "it".

So regardless of the true nature of God the limitations of the Hebrew language mean't God had to be described as male or female, even if neither were the case?

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But we're not talking about English or German. The earliest account we have about the Judeo-Christian God appears in Genesis, which was written in Hebrew. Nouns in Hebrew are either masculine or feminine. Meaning that God, or any other noun, can't be an "it".

Yes although pedantic entirely correct. I did not explicitly say what I implicitly meant in my post...which I now happily rectify.... that I am talking about current usage of words in both languages but peppered with a healthy interest in recent etymology.

Though interestingly what you have indirectly pointed out was that the original writers did not HAVE the neuter option available in the Germanic languages. A small difference but if different would have some very interesting implications on our entire discourse today. Butterfly effect indeed.

Fanny Cradock

wonderfulname wrote: »

So regardless of the true nature of God the limitations of the Hebrew language mean't God had to be described as male or female, even if neither were the case?

No, I my post was only in reply to nozzferrahhtoo's comparison with German and English as if either had an impact on the Hebrew. That Father in Hebrew is a masculine noun is entirely serrate to assigning a male parental role to God.

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes although pedantic entirely correct. I did not explicitly say what I implicitly meant in my post...which I now happily rectify.... that I am talking about current usage of words in both languages but peppered with a healthy interest in recent etymology.

Though interestingly what you have indirectly pointed out was that the original writers did not HAVE the neuter option available in the Germanic languages. A small difference but if different would have some very interesting implications on our entire discourse today. Butterfly effect indeed.

I don't understand? What has German got to do with Hebrew and Torah?

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I my post was only in reply to nozzferrahhtoo's comparison with German and English as if either had an impact on the Hebrew. That Father in Hebrew is a masculine noun is entirely serrate to assigning a male parental role to God.

And as I said I wish we had the chance to see what they would have done with a language that HAD the choice of using a neuter noun. But as you pointed out yourself this was not an option.

Do you think the gender assigned to god in the Germanic languages is to do with any actual attribute OF that god, or is it to do with the limitations of the languages originally used to describe him/it?

And whatever the answer.... may I append a "why" and "how so" to it?

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do you think the gender assigned to god in the Germanic languages is to do with any actual attribute OF that god, or is it to do with the limitations of the languages originally used to describe him/it?

If you can explain to me why the Israelites should be concerned with the Germanic languages - a group of languages that didn't exist in the time of writing/ editing of the Torah - perhaps we can then explore your question.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And whatever the answer.... may I append a "why" and "how so" to it?

While I'm not claiming that I unerringly know why God would choose to be associated with maleness, please see the third post of this thread.

nozzferrahhtoo

You miss the point of my question by asking me why they would be concerned with Germanic languages!!!! Of course they couldn't, such languages hadn't been invented yet. I think you should read what I wrote again.

What I am asking is GIVEN the limitation of their language, in that they DID NOT have a gender neuter option in it.... do you think that limitation had any affect at all?


My post is worth re reading in the light of this clarifcation

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You miss the point of my question by asking me why they would be concerned with Germanic languages!!!! Of course they couldn't, such languages hadn't been invented yet. I think you should read what I wrote again.

What I am asking is GIVEN the limitation of their language, in that they DID NOT have a gender neuter option in it.... do you think that limitation had any affect at all?


My post is worth re reading in the light of this clarifcation

Two things. Firstly, I'm not sure by what criteria you determine Hebrew to be limited. Secondly, I've answered your question on several occasions. Again, I don't believe that God being referred to as Father has anything to do with a grammatical quirk of Hebrew. I think it is a description of part of God's nature.

That Father in Hebrew is a masculine noun is entirely serrate to assigning a male parental role to God.

or here

nozzferrahhtoo

Still missing the point of what I am asking alas. You are looking at the question retrospectively which is the wrong way to do it.

What I am saying is that NOW we have languages with gender neutral options in them, like the German word "das".

What I am asking is if you really think that not having this option at the time of the writing of early religious texts, like those of the Christian faiths, really had, or even COULD have had, no implications on how we currently refer to this evidence devoid deity?

I honestly do not think we can make that assumption. I am aware of nothing we can base any gender assignment on for such an entity, and so there must have been at least SOME arbitrary assignment in the time of our ancestors.

However clearly my claim can not be tested, short of going back in time and presenting to the locals a language with a neuter option in the nouns. So my claim is essentially useless but is not unworthy of some consideration, which is the most I ask of it.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I am asking is if you really think that not having this option at the time of the writing of early religious texts, like those of the Christian faiths, really had, or even COULD have had, no implications on how we currently refer to this evidence devoid deity God?

Fixed your post.

There are verses which directly refer to God as Father, or King, rather than Queen, Mother or anything else for that matter. This would suggest to me that the Hebrews right up to the early church and beyond, related to God as Father, even if He is without gender.

Relating to a being for humans without any terms of reference in terms of Father and so on, is incredibly difficult. So I would imagine this would have been a good reason for God to relate to us as Father.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I honestly do not think we can make that assumption. I am aware of nothing we can base any gender assignment on for such an entity, and so there must have been at least SOME arbitrary assignment in the time of our ancestors.

I think we very easily can. Not only if we are to analyse the Hebrew, but also the Greek.

Edit: This bring us back into the whole rigmarole of whether or not the Bible is actually the inspired word of God or not. If it isn't then yes obviously man came up with this off the top of his head, if it is, then it is worthy of more consideration

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However clearly my claim can not be tested, short of going back in time and presenting to the locals a language with a neuter option in the nouns. So my claim is essentially useless but is not unworthy of some consideration, which is the most I ask of it.

True, but I think it is a real stretch.

Fanny Cradock

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Still missing the point of what I am asking alas. You are looking at the question retrospectively which is the wrong way to do it.

Perhaps I am missing your point. But then again you haven't actually explained why we should replace the orthodox understanding that God is the Father with your own particular understanding. You have failed to explain away why the authors of the Bible - from the Israelites right up to the earliest Christians - associated God with maleness, with fatherhood. All I've seen so far is the claim that Hebrew is "limited" and the implication that God was considered to be the Father only because the Israelites didn't possess neuter nouns - as if our understanding of God was a linguistic quirk. I don't agree with this; it has no foundation. Evidentially the authors of the NT didn't agree with you either because even though Koine Greek possess masculine, feminine and neuter nouns, they didn't feel the need to refer to God as "it". All this makes you below point rather irrelevant.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I am saying is that NOW we have languages with gender neutral options in them, like the German word "das".

I think I'll just leave the below quote hanging.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However clearly my claim can not be tested, short of going back in time and presenting to the locals a language with a neuter option in the nouns. So my claim is essentially useless but is not unworthy of some consideration, which is the most I ask of it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Jakkass wrote: »

Fixed your post.

If by fixed you mean changed what I said into what I did not say by putting words in my mouth then… thanks but no thanks.

I will respond to you next time when you actually reply to the words I myself wrote.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But then again you haven't actually explained why we should replace the orthodox understanding that God is the Father with your own particular understanding.

Nor am I aware of claiming you should

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think I'll just leave the below quote hanging.

Do. I presented it as nothing more than a thought experiment and no more. For me it is enough that it is out there.

wonderfulname

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

you haven't actually explained why we should replace the orthodox understanding that God is the Father with your own particular understanding.

Miss, Miss, I believe I addressed that point! Although I am not saying God is not the father just that that doesn't necessarily make God male..

Its here and here

Fanny Cradock

But your "thought experiment" has been rejected long before you suggested it. It was rejected 2000 years ago when the NT was penned. It was rejected 1750 years ago when Ulfilas translated the first Germanic bible. It was rejected in 1522 when Luther translated the NT - Die Luther Bibel. But you ignored all this and stubbornly press on with whatever point you are trying to make.

Fanny Cradock

wonderfulname wrote: »

Miss, Miss, I believe I addressed that point! Although I am not saying God is not the father just that that doesn't necessarily make God male..

Its here and here

You are getting your genders confused. I'm not a Miss, I'm a Mr. You are also not understanding my argument. I've not claimed that God is physically male. I've said that characteristics associated with maleness are associated with God. See my first post.

nozzferrahhtoo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But you ignored all this and stubbornly press on with whatever point you are trying to make.

Again I am not making a point, I am suggesting it worth thinking about. Not just here either, but across our entire language. Many attitudes and ideas are the way they are today, merely because of the language people had available to them when they first formed them.

This concept is not unexplored either. Orwell’s 1984 is a great example of this as he explores the idea of controlling the masses by removing from them the words that would foster their ability to commit thought crime.

I see no reason to dismiss entirely the concept that the lack of Neutral Nouns in early languages has had some effect on how we refer to some entities, objects or ideas today, even if you can compliment the notion with OTHER reasons why such entities are referred to as masculine this does not negate that other influences were also there.

Thought experiments do not have to make points, it is enough that they are out there, and when they are out there it is enough that they get discussed... as they are each time you reply to me on this thread. Ta.