god, a woman???, what do you think? Options

[XoJennaoX]

These damn feminists.... lets just call God an "it" and make everyone happy ....jeeze.... we just can't leave anything in history as it is anymore, can we?

[agirlnamed_aly]

I don't know. I was raised a Cathloic since birth, so I do perceive God as a man.

Some people like to believe in the idea of Mother Nature, which seems fitting. I don't see God as a woman, but I picture the spirit of Earth as being a woman.

[xnlover]

What the original post said - i.e. that some people are changing the pronoun used to refer to God in some Bibles from "He" to "He/She" is somewhat misleading. I follow this issue pretty closely and don't know of any Bible editions that do this. What they do - for example, in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Today's New International Version (TNIV), and others - is 1. to continue to use "He" where a pronoun is used in reference to God; 2. to acknowledge where there is no pronoun warranted by the original Hebrew or Greek text, and remove the pronouns from those places, rephrasing the text to be more closely reflective of the original language; 3. use the word "God" rather than the pronoun "He" where that is possible, seeking, however, to avoid over-repetition of the word "God."

Where they actually make distinct changes in the translation are where the text has traditionally been translated "man" but the sense of the original Hebrew or Greek is clearly "humanity" or "human beings." In such places, those or other words that are more inclusive are used. For example, those who argue above that "God is male because the Bible says God created 'man' in God's own image and then created 'woman' out of the rib of 'man'" are guilty in making that argument of inappropriately conflating two scriptures to try to prove their biased opinion. The passage in which scripture says "God created 'man' in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," (Gen. 1.27) clearly says that both male and female are "in the image of God," not just the male alone. Therefore, the NRSV rephrases the first part of that verse, "God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created 'them'..." resulting in a much more inclusive linguistic formula (i.e. using "humankind" and "them") to correspond with the inclusiveness of the verse itself.

I could write much more about the recent move towards the use of inclusive language in biblical translation, but there are several books on the market to which you can refer if you are interested in a fuller treatment of the issue. One from what I'd call a "conservative but affirming" perspective re: inclusive language is D. A. Carson's The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. Check out the comments on the amazon.com webpage for this book. In addition, though I don't have a copy of the TNIV, the NRSV includes in the essay "To the Reader" a long paragraph explaining very briefly the committee's justification for and procedures followed in making the translation more inclusive in reference to human beings.

I'll close with the comment of one feminist scholar who encouraged the use of inclusive language, the comment expressing some of the reason she did so: "If God is male, then the male is God." The truth of that problematical attitude through history, even up to the present is all too evident.

[sadolakced acid]

wow. you are very versed in bible lit, as i see...
very impressive first post.

so the 'he' and 'man' that the bible uses were added by the later translators of the bible...

[*not_your_average*]

you should clarify that by "He" and "God" you mean a God from a certain religion because there are some religions with male and female Gods.

THANK YOU! Not everyone believes in the Christian God. Hinduism (although, not polytheistic) has male and female reperesentations (called "avatars") of God.

I feel that the Bible has many flaws, despite the fact that Christianity has the most followers in this world. But whenever I walk into a church, I feel such a great peace of mind.

[girlpower65]

i believe that God is both male and female, and that when jesus comes back, he will be female. he was male originally because people back then wouldnt listen to a word any woman said.

[*iNyCxShoRT*]

I think God is a male, that's my opinion. I can't see God as a female o_O

[jue]

i think thats a pretty decent idea.
after all, who knows how GOD really looks like
so who is there to judge if GOD is man or woman?

[xnlover]

Asking "who is there to judge if God is a man or a woman" would be met with the response of some Christians by their quoting, for example, John's Gospel, where he writes, "No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known" (John 1.18). Then from that they would explain that since Jesus called God "Father," and since he gave us the so-called Lord's Prayer (e.g. Matt. 6.9-13), in which we are instructed to address God as "Father," and since it is clear that anyone addressed as "Father" has to be a man (notwithstanding the fact that some Episcopalians call their female priests "Father," because they don't have a word in their tradition that distinguishes a male priest from a female priest, so the title "Father" refers to the office the person holds, regardless of the sex of the one who holds the office), and, finally, since the Bible - they believe - is "God's revealed word to humanity," therefore God is clearly male and must not be referred to as being female.

There are many things such persons don't recognize in making those kinds of logical connections and coming to those conclusions, but I'll just point out one. Language is a means by which human beings have attempted to talk about human experience, and because of that, it not only "names" things and experiences, but it also shapes the way we relate to those experiences and things. Therefore, there ends up being a link between what I would call language's "descriptive function" and its "prescriptive function." The "descriptive function" involves our attempts to relate to the experience itself, and to help others relate to it in a meaningful way as well. The "prescriptive function" involves our attempts to say that the thing we experienced needs in some sense to continue to correspond to the language we have used to describe it and relate to it.

The way this affects how we conceive of God, in part, is as follows. People who adhere to the Christian tradition have read or heard texts from the Bible, usually in translation from the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Many of those translations are as accurate as they can be made, so the issue is usually not a problem with translation. In relation to the gender of God, the original texts used a variety of words to name or refer to God, but the vast majority of them have the connotation that God is conceived of as male. The few references to God in the Bible that can be construed to refer to God as female or even plural are few and far between. The problem is that some people don't recognize the fact that the human writers of the text of the Bible were attempting to use language that was meaningful to them to describe their experience of the divine or to relate the experience of divinity of other people, and they used language that was meaningful to them and that would be meaningful to the people who heard or read what they had written. They weren't trying to answer our modern question, "Is God male or female"? They were trying to say, "This is the way I or others have experienced God." They weren't closing the door on the idea that other people in other times might experience God in other ways and might use very different language to describe that experience. (For example, a friend of mine had had a lot of problems relating positively to God as long as God was imaged exclusively in male terms, but when it was suggested to her that she think of the person in her life who loved her the most, and she thought of her grandmother. When she began relating to God as "Grandma God," suddenly her experience of the presence and love of the God Jesus referred to as "Father" became wondrously meaningful and significant in her life.)

So the ongoing controversies over the descriptive and prescriptive functions of language will probably continue; but the fact is that language serves both functions, and yet when we insist that it serve the prescriptive function in the way we say it should rather than in the way someone else says it should, we are engaging in a power play to try to assert our own authority over another, and we are, in Christian terms, attempting to put ourselves in the place of God, rather than letting God be God and letting God deal with the person with whom we disagree in whatever (usually much more loving) way God wishes to. We also may be ignoring ways in which God is trying to speak to us and to remind us of our own limitations. In that way we put ourselves at risk not only of being wrong but also of being a hindrance to the work of God in the world.

[rOckThISshYt]

Personally, I'm atheist so it's not too much of a deal to me. But I don't see why it can't be a woman. Yet again... another double standard. The best (meaning god) always must be a man.

Well, I take that back. That's how it is in more modern times. The Romans or Greeks (I forget which one. Maybe both.) believed there was a balance between men and woman gods and godesses - each having different qualities. If there was one less female, it would be off balance. And same goes for one less male. That's what it should really be.

[timeflies51]

"If there is a God, it has to be a man. No woman could or would ever f**k things up like this."
--George Carlin

[Mr. Slowjamz]

I live in Catholic faith ...so God is considered to be Male . but considering the issue of being male , most people percieve that if God is Male he would be more hard on specific issues . of course hes considered Male because hes most dominant , and if you`ve looked at paritcular situations scientifically how would you compare living -beings too God (for non-believers) well obviously you would try to compare God to simply a person who leads his people , and usually what most Animal groups leaders are considered to be male . Its the Male animal that are leading the pack group , etc.


I feel as though in my personal referance is that God is Strong-willed yet has a benevolent side ....he can be very warming and caring and feminie , but that doesnt change his gender . Most likely he might have some sort of hermaphrodite personality , as in what some top philophers believe in .

another reason as to why God is considered a male is because ..he presents the holyspirit through "The Holy Virgin Mary".

[Shahin]

I say.........





Get over it.

[cashmere deer]

It is possible, but that is a bit of an extreme don't you think? Changing the words in the bible and all. I don't know I am a strong believer in believe what you will. Not what a book tells you to.

[Mr. Slowjamz]

ok guys think about this scientifically for all you skeptics .

Most Dominant Gender and Leader for Animals are : Males

Then God considered in olden times are Considered : Male

so basically i guess thats how people got the idea

[glorwen]

Okay, personally, I think God is genderless, but, seriously, if I had to debate, I'd say he's a man because I don't think a woman would make other women go through excruciating pain every month.

[Ington]

God was never considered male. It doesn't take a genius to realize that an entity such as God cannot be physical being, much less like us or animals to have a gender.
He was considered masculine. There is a difference.

God was considered masculine because men, or the symbols for masculinity, were dominant in the beginning, and as God is the most dominant entity, He was associated as masculine as well. It is only tradition that makes us call God 'Him'.

The answer: God is not a woman, nor is He a man. It is disrespect to call God 'it', as that is what you call an object. Until we come up with a different term for God, we will be debating which gender to associate Him to.

i believe that God is both male and female, and that when jesus comes back, he will be female. he was male originally because people back then wouldnt listen to a word any woman said.

Wow, wtf. That's just stupid. I'm pretty sure people would listen to something that could destroy them instantly regardless of whether or not it was a man or woman.

[*ECD & C0*]

people need to get over it males i guess are looked upon as being dominent so just because some womans rights activist thinks its unfair doesn't mean we have to change everything i eman its god THEY AREN'T TRYING TO OFFEND YOU they just think of him as a father figure

[twinkles6801]

i think god as a "he" is better because "he" is the father of christ, and virgin mary is the mother.
They would have to alter a hell of alot of the bible if they were to change it.

[fameONE]

^Not everyone sees God in the Christian sense, ya dig?

[kimmytree]

God is a He. Jesus Christ is the son of God. Jesus Christ called God "his heavenly Father." Father is male. Male is man. Man is he.

But, the people back in the time the books of the Bible were written were probably pretty sexist. There are so many verses about how a woman was below her husband, had no say in the church, how the husband had to be saved in order for the wife to be, ect..



So to me, if the Bible is in fact true, its still possible that "he" is a "she". More than likely though, he's neither. Why would God need to have a gender?

[flc]

I would have to tell those women to get over it. They're making a big deal over something that isn't. Just like the people who tried to omit the words "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. It's not worth fussing over something like that. Think what you want to think.

We read "The Creation and the Fall" & "Noah and the Ark" in English class simply because it was viewed as literature {At least I hope so.}, & that's what I sometimes think of the Bible, as literature. For something that's supposed to tell a story, the main character should be pretty well established. There shouldn't be any confusion about the gender. Wouldn't it be annoying to constantly read "he/she" all over the place?

[*yrrnotelekktric*]

to me, God will always be a man.

[brandewijn]

Ugh! Women, or rather...people in general. Don't they have other things to be whining about? How about the situation in Darfur. I don't know about you but to me, it's a much more important situation.

People (especially women) love to just dig and dig to find something new to gripe about.

[Joss-eh-lime]

^seriously[about darfur] we need to focus on more important things.

i really have no opinion or care because i don't believe in god.

then why post?


i think God has no gender like glorwen said.