cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (08/14/84)
What good does this discussion of God's gender serve? By definition, isn't God so far advanced that we can not begin to really understand the nature of God? So again I ask, what good does this serve? In my opinion, absolutely nothing. It ranks in the same category as the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Could this time be spent on things more important? Rather than the question of gender, which is totally irrelevant to our relationship with God, could we not dwell on the very nature of the Almighty? Rather than flame at each other, could we not be discussing the very reasons for the existence of religion? What could be of more importance than, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not parish, but have everlasting life." And the christian response to that should be to, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." What I am advocating is a discussion of the real meaning of religion, especially the christian religion. This may be offensive to some, but is of more importance than any unresolvable question about God, or life. Jeff Williams AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Ill. ihnp4!cfiaime
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/14/84)
When religous belief involves a personal relationship with one's God
thinking in terms of gender is very hard to avoid. Belief in a God
who is a personality (as opposed to, say, some pantheistic concept of
God) almost forces one to think in terms of a gender for that person.
Where Christian belief is concerned (and, perhaps, Judaism as well) the
fact that God is called "he" is irrelevant to the question of his gender,
but still very significant as a mark of personality.
In the begining of Genesis we read:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God he created him; male and female he created them."
Genesis 1:27 (RSV)
Genesis 2 gives the man, Adam, as being created first. The question that
arises in my mind is, "Can we really call Adam 'male' when there was yet
no female'?"
This seems to be the same problem we have had in thinking of God as male.
God is "He", but he is not male. So when God created Adam, did he create
a man, or did he create Man. I think the latter. His creation of Eve
was not so much a separate act, but he took what was to be Woman out of
Man (symbolized by the "rib"). I think that's what "woman" means, in the
Hebrew (i.e. "taken out of man").
I don't think the use of the male pronoun in describing God is sexist
at all. Problems come when men start thinkng they are built more after
the image of God because God is a "he". But God did not make men in
his image, he made Man in his image ... and he made "them" male and
female.
The problem I have with the current trend toward calling God "he" and/or
"she", "father and mother" or "parent". Is that it seems to tear God
apart as a person. We are used to thinking of male and female as
two *separate* persons, but God just isn't that way. Even words like
"parent" and "person" tend to depersonalize God. I think it bends our
concept of God more toward pantheism for the sake of our own unwillingness
to accept the fact that the words "man" and "he" can be used in the
generic sense, in no way giving more actual significance to male humans.
(You can probably tell from all this that I am not a strict trinitarian.
I think thinking of the Godhead as three persons is fine if it helps,
but it is hardly more than a mental device. It's not monotheistic enough
for me.)
So if some of us Christians call God "he" and some "she", how can we
maintian the important understanding that we serve one, and the same, God?
On the other hand, if we call God "it" or "parent" or "person", how
do we then keep our view of God from degenerating into an impersonal,
pantheistic, nobody?
Let's change the limited ways we think about God (Him) instead of the
words we use. When we remove the necesity of abstract thinking, in
this case by changing our language, we end up with something in our
language that is further removed from what it actually is. It differs
on much more significant points than the question of whether or not
we should think of God as male or female. Are we sure that what what
we are trying to do is not to fashion God in our own image?
--
Paul Dubuc {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd
The true light that enlightens every one was coming
into the world... (John 1:9)stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz) (08/14/84)
> What could be of more importance than, "For God so loved the world > that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him > should not parish, but have everlasting life." And the christian > response to that should be to, "Therefore go and make disciples of > all nations..." I think that should be "should not perish", after all, "should not parish" would seem directly opposed to the point the author was trying to make. A Freudian slip, perhaps?? In any event, I contest the notion that the current discussion is unreasonable, and I especially contest the notion that we should only devote our theological efforts to "a discussion of the real meaning of religion, especially the christian religion." If you want to discuss only the christian religion, perhaps we should form net.religion.christian. (net.religion.christian.intolerant) I am a christian, but my interest in religion goes beyond christianity. Net.religion is the idea venue for discussions about the nature of religion in general, the interaction between religions and society, etc. These are important issues. Even the "deific gender" question is completely appropriate. First, there is considerable convergence of opinion on the question (most of the difficulties seem to be grammarical, not theological); second, the effect of culture on religion is particularly clear in this case; and third, people with widely ranging religious philosophies have been able to discuss this issue with little of the name-calling that characterizes most "christian" debates in this forum. > This may be offensive to some, but is of more importance than any > unresolvable question about God, or life. What offends me about you note is only your "provincial christian" attitude. Question: Besides Rich Rosen, what other famous atheist (and alleged AI program) has the infamous RR initials? [Hint: if you vote for him in November, your complementary lobotomy is redundant.] Stuart Kurtz | Send mail, I'm going on vacation. ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/15/84)
> The problem I have with the current trend toward calling God "he" and/or > "she", "father and mother" or "parent". Is that it seems to tear God > apart as a person. We are used to thinking of male and female as > two *separate* persons, but God just isn't that way. Even words like > "parent" and "person" tend to depersonalize God. I thought god was "depersonalized". Is it (if it exists) a person? Then why make it out to be so? This may be just the anthropocentric view based on an individual need to feel closer to a deity, but that doesn't change what the deity would be. Just because one wants to think of god as a person doesn't make god into a person, nor does it give something that's supposed to be beyond our comprehension a gender, an age, or a hairstyle (e.g., old man with a beard). > I think it bends our concept of God more toward pantheism ... Isn't imposing human characteristics on a deity bending the reality of god? Is "our concept of god" more important (and unflinching) than what that god really might be? > When we remove the necesity of abstract thinking, in > this case by changing our language, we end up with something in our > language that is further removed from what it actually is. Are we sure that > what what we are trying to do is not to fashion God in our own image? I would have thought that the reverse would be true, that fashioning a deity in our own image is what's been going on for thousands of years. -- "Now, Benson, I'm going to have to turn you into a dog for a while." "Ohhhh, thank you, Master!!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/15/84)
From Paul Dubuc >Even words like >"parent" and "person" tend to depersonalize God. I think it bends our >concept of God more toward pantheism for the sake of our own unwillingness >to accept the fact that the words "man" and "he" can be used in the >generic sense, in no way giving more actual significance to male humans. > >..... > >On the other hand, if we call God "it" or "parent" or "person", how >do we then keep our view of God from degenerating into an impersonal, >pantheistic, nobody? Even though you've explained this twice, I really don't understand why the choice of the words "parent" or "person" would depersonalise God. Unlike "father" which has very loaded connotations, the word "parent" is very liberating in that one can think about an idealised parental relationship between the individuals concerned (in this case God and me) without relating it to the actual father-child relationship as we know it. "parent" encompasses both the "mother-child" and "father-child" relationships in one word, and is a fusion of the two separate "father" and "mother" entity which I would hope God as a parent would be. I find it very nice. But maybe the point is not to find it very nice, at least one gets that impression listening to fundamental christians sometimes......... Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley
features@ihuxf.UUCP (M.A. Zeszutko) (08/15/84)
Maybe our problem is in referring to God with a noun in the first place. I ran into one theologian who postulated that the Trinity was "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier"...no nouns needed here. It avoids the male/female thing entirely. Mary Ann Zeszutko AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville IL ihnp4!ihuxf!features
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (08/16/84)
Please restrict this discussion to net.religion; it has gone far enough afield to have lost all relevance to net.women. Thank you. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (08/16/84)
Can we *please* restrict this to net.religion???? I think this discussion lost its relevance to net.women some time ago. Thanks. Lauri
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (08/17/84)
> Maybe our problem is in referring to God with a noun in the first place. > I ran into one theologian who postulated that the Trinity was > "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier"...no nouns needed here. It avoids > the male/female thing entirely. > > Mary Ann Zeszutko AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville IL > ihnp4!ihuxf!features My dictionary defines the three words; Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier: as nouns. Perhaps you meant to say pronouns? Richard Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/18/84)
From Rich Rosen: > I thought god was "depersonalized". Is it (if it exists) a person? Then > why make it out to be so? This may be just the anthropocentric view based > on an individual need to feel closer to a deity, but that doesn't change > what the deity would be. Just because one wants to think of god as a person > doesn't make god into a person, nor does it give something that's supposed > to be beyond our comprehension a gender, an age, or a hairstyle (e.g., old > man with a beard). There seems to be a contradiction implied in the above. Rich obviously is trying to imply that God is not personal. Yet he says God is supposed to be beyond our comprehension. But if God is not personal, then He (pronoun of convenience) would be less than personal; for the lack of personality means lack of things such as rational intelligence, love, and and a conscious will, attributes which God most certainly has. God appears as a person in visions and in the Incarnation so that we can understand as much of Him as we are able; but Paul has said (approximate quote) "Now we see a dim reflection in a mirror; but then face to face" -- i.e. we can understand just a very little of God now. But that very little is infinitely better than none at all. > Isn't imposing human characteristics on a deity bending the reality of god? Well...He did it Himself, in Jesus. Can God bend His own reality? > Is "our concept of god" more important (and unflinching) than what that god > really might be? No. In fact my concept of God has changed considerably in the years I've known Him, just as one's concept of any friend can change over the years. Certainly what He is is the most important (and unchanging); but again, we only have a glimpse of what that unchanging reality is. > I would have thought that...fashioning a deity > in our own image is what's been going on for thousands of years. Lots of people do this; I have myself, in times past, projected a lot of my own self-condemning feelings onto God (sufficiently that people told me I had an "Old Testament God", though I think this is not entirely fair to the O.T. picture of God). But as one gets to know God more closely, one comes more and more to know the falseness in one's picture of God and one's relationship to Him. He invites us to know Him, and only we can prevent that from happening, for He has given us that power. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "We can build a beautiful city, yes we can, yes we can...."
perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (08/21/84)
<> > Rich obviously is >trying to imply that God is not personal. Yet he says God is supposed to be >beyond our comprehension. But if God is not personal, then He (pronoun of >convenience) would be less than personal; for the lack of personality means >lack of things such as rational intelligence, love, and and a conscious will, >attributes which God most certainly has. >-- Jeff Sargent Your logic is wrong. Jeff's logic: If God is personal, he has love, etc. God is not personal therefore, God does not have love. Comparable example: All women breath. Ronald Reagan is not a woman. therefore, Ronald Reagan does not breath. Would you buy computer programs from this man? Robert Perlberg Resource Dynamics Inc. New York philabs!rdin!perl
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (08/30/84)
Belated reply to Robert Perlberg (I'm still playing catch-up): >> = Sargent > = Perlberg >> But if God is not personal, then He (pronoun of >> convenience) would be less than personal; for the lack of personality means >> lack of things such as rational intelligence, love, and and a conscious will, >> attributes which God most certainly has. > Your logic is wrong. > Jeff's logic: > If God is personal, he has love, etc. > God is not personal > therefore, God does not have love. Actually, the logic I see is more like: If God is not personal, then He lacks these neat attributes. But He has these neat attributes. Therefore, God is personal. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq "I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."
dnc@dartvax.UUCP (David Crespo) (09/04/84)
~h if god is personal he has love god is not personal implies god does not have love p impplies q not p implies not q logic faulty p implies q does not imply not p implies not q however p implies q q implies p not p does ! imply not q since not (not q) would imply q would imply p, a contradiction thus if god has love then he is personal must be examined however we know that god has love p -> q p ooops p -> q ~p q is our given set thus ~p may not imply ~q or not (q implies p) or q must not imply p this does not mean that q implies not p except it does mean that: if q, then not p, since not p. not q implies not p may be true, but only if q implies not p as well. if god is personal then god has love god has love god is not personal thus if god is not personal then god has love god has love whether or not he is personal which by assumption, he is not, though it does not matter unless: god does not have love! p->q not q implies not p it all depends on what you want god to be personal or not god to have love or not Except that if he does not have love, he may not be personal (if his being personal implies his having love) I'll buy that! (unless we progress to more complicated multivalue logics (as the quantum mechanist are doing right now) in which case p and not p is true is possible but i think no one wants to get into that. bye.
gnome@olivee.UUCP (09/10/84)
I saw a bumper sticker that said - GOD IS COMING! -and is she pissed!