Originally posted by Senmut
Calling God "He" is of course a anthropomorphism. If we speak of God as in the Judeo/Xtian sense, God is Self-revealed, and whatever we know about Him comes from Him. In terms of our Human frame of reference, there are really only two ways we can conceptualize God, in terms of gender. Obviously, there was a 50/50 chance it might have gone the other way, in which case centuries of bitching would have reflected that reality. Why God has chosen (if you accept the J/C world view, of course) to be known as "Him" and not "Her" is something we are not told. Perhaps it is something our limited minds cannot fully grasp?
Obviously true. Let's face it, some of those who defend the use of "He" most strenuously base their action entirely on the "we've always believed it that way" argument. Giving a rational defense (other than the obvious "It is the language that Scripture uses") is something else entirely. Permit me this observation, though. This is not a defense, just additional information.
God the Father--the first person of the Christian Trinity--is portrayed symbolically as the Lord/Leader of the household. The Son is Jesus Christ. In some places in the Old Testament the people of God are portrayed as the wife of Jehovah. In the New Testament God’s people are portrayed as the Bride of Christ. Historical church tradition speaks often of “Holy Mother Church”. And, of course, the place of Mary as the mother of Christ makes the role of the woman highly prominent in the church. I guess all I am saying in these few words is that the matter of masculine and feminine pronouns is not unimportant, and changing God arbitrarily to She or It has a whole slew of unintended side effects on a lot of important Christian metaphors and allegories. The God of the Christian Bible is not portrayed as an isolated, aloof singularity, but as the focus of a host of relationships. FWIW.
We must ask ourselves, acceptable where, and by whom? After all, some religions conceive of God as a bloodthirsty warrior who slaughters for the sheer joy of it. Others as a hungry, angry deity, who demands Human flesh to eat. Still others as some nameless, faceless natural force. Obviously, they can't all be right, and when we use the word "acceptable", we need to qualify what we mean thereby.
Inevitably we must face the fact that faith has an impact on actions. As Americans (other nationalities bear with me here) we try our best to be tolerant and accepting of all faiths, but if a faith different from ours requires an action that we consider unacceptable, then we either become intolerant of that faith, or we Americanize it and eliminate the unacceptable parts. As for the angry deity of the Old Testament,, a lot of people have a lot of trouble with Him. . .but a lot of people don’t. Why they don’t is the stuff of a really interesting dorm debate, but it’s a little steep for this thread. At this time, anyway. One important fact, though, is that in America there is no one single definition of what constitutes the True Faith. As some rather intolerant wags have put it, “In America every individual has the right to go to hell in a way of his own choosing.” Seriously, though, freedom is the rule. That means that I am free to reject all faith if I think that is the right path; it means I can join a specific denomination and vigorously believe and defend every detail of what that church teaches, or it can mean that I can join a particular church (in my case, Presbyterian) and accept its teachings in a general way while focusing mostly on those basic, foundational teachings that are common to all branches of the Christian church. In any case, I as an individual am responsible to make the choice that is right for me, and to accept the consequences if I make what turns out to be a wrong choice. (Yes, objective truth is alive and well, and it is possible to make one’s own choice about faith and still be wrong! But let that go for another post.)
|
