In general they are talking about the Christian God. The character of Jesus was male. So when they refer to the God of the bible, Jesus and Yahweh are both referred to as male in the scriptures. Yahweh wouldn't be biologically classified as a male. (As claimed by its believers he has no biological properties.) But in the colloquial use of the word at the time. The father was typically the head of the house. So it would stand to reason for the people back then writing the bible, that they referred to their leader in the masculine. That is probably why. At least that is how I make sense of it.Amos14 wrote:Hi there! I'm new to the forum, so I apologize in advance if this isn't an appropriate topic (or a good way to send a question to Scott and Emery). I've been enjoying the podcast on-and-off for the past two years or so, and I've noticed a pattern: both Scott and Emery seem to consistently use male pronouns when referring to God (ex: He, His, Him). I was wondering how Scott and Emery felt about inclusive language and why they don't use it. I'm not attempting to do any male-bashing here. It's just that I have grown to feel that inclusive language is important, so I tend to notice when others aren't using it. Thanks for providing a great podcast with interesting discussions.
Julian of Norwich wrote:Are you familiar with this
It is a characteristic of God to overcome evil with good.
Jesus Christ therefore, who himself overcame evil with good, is our true Mother. We received our ‘Being’ from Him and this is where His Maternity starts And with it comes the gentle Protection and Guard of Love which will never ceases to surround us.
Just as God is our Father, so God is also our Mother.
And He showed me this truth in all things, but especially in those sweet words when He says: “It is I”.
As if to say, I am the power and the Goodness of the Father, I am the Wisdom of the Mother, I am the Light and the Grace which is blessed love, I am the Trinity, I am the Unity, I am the supreme Goodness of all kind of things, I am the One who makes you love, I am the One who makes you desire, I am the never-ending fulfilment of all true desires.
Our highest Father, God Almighty, who is ‘Being’, has always known us and loved us: because of this knowledge, through his marvellous and deep charity and with the unanimous consent of the Blessed Trinity, He wanted the Second Person to become our Mother, our Brother, our Saviour.
It is thus logical that God, being our Father, be also our Mother. Our Father desires, our Mother operates and our good Lord the Holy Ghost confirms; we are thus well advised to love our God through whom we have our being, to thank him reverently and to praise him for having created us and to pray fervently to our Mother, so as to obtain mercy and compassion, and to pray to our Lord, the Holy Ghost, to obtain help and grace.
I then saw with complete certainty that God, before creating us, loved us, and His love never lessened and never will. In this love he accomplished all his works, and in this love he oriented all things to our good and in this love our life is eternal.
With creation we started but the love with which he created us was in Him from the very beginning and in this love is our beginning.
And all this we shall see it in God eternally.
Amos14 wrote:Personally, I believe that using inclusive language when referring to God is important. I think it’s important for both theological and scriptural accuracy.
yjoeyh wrote:For me, being raised in the 70's, by a very strongly female-dominated family, which had some pretty progressive ideas about the liberation of women from traditional roles, I had a particularly difficult time coming to terms with it being okay to even acknowledge that men and women were different. I was raised to view gender identity as a line that needed to be blurred, rather than underlined. Even into my mid 20's and during my much more 'conservative' Christian days, I thought that it was taboo, and even morally unacceptable to talk about the differences between men and women because it perpetuated stereotypes that were limiting and harmful. I also tended to equate patriarchy with misogyny.
Later, I met, (and ended up dating a few) Christian women who really changed my whole way of thinking on this issue. They were incredibly intelligent, talented and insightful and were in no way threatened by gender-specific language or roles, but rather viewed them as positive and empowering. I specifically remember my girlfriend at one point and time asked me directly how I felt about women pastoring churches (because I mentioned I went to a Methodist church when I was young and my pastor's wife, pastored another church) and I basically told her that I didn't have a problem it (which at the time I didn't.) She then went on to give some very insightful reasons why she opposed it, and coming from her(being a very strong and confident women) really made me think and helped open my eyes to the problems at the time with my way of looking at gender differences entirely.
yjoeyh wrote:What I really had learned was that my old way of thinking was actually very disrespectful to women
yjoeyh wrote:But that was wrong, because clearly they are very different at the most basic levels. Not only that, by muting those differences, I was missing out on some of the most important life lessons about God, my relationship with him and the human experience overall.
Amos14 wrote:Hi there! I'm new to the forum, so I apologize in advance if this isn't an appropriate topic (or a good way to send a question to Scott and Emery). I've been enjoying the podcast on-and-off for the past two years or so, and I've noticed a pattern: both Scott and Emery seem to consistently use male pronouns when referring to God (ex: He, His, Him). I was wondering how Scott and Emery felt about inclusive language and why they don't use it. I'm not attempting to do any male-bashing here. It's just that I have grown to feel that inclusive language is important, so I tend to notice when others aren't using it. Thanks for providing a great podcast with interesting discussions.
He still created them both.Keep The Reason wrote:Well it's not clear. In the first version of the story, it sayd male and female he created them, but in the second story, hew took woman out of man -- one step removed.
Certainly, if you know they're fictional. I don't see how you can think you could possibly know that, though. But you talk like you know for a certainty many things that you can't possibly know.It doesn't much matter though. The gender of a fictional character seems like a pointless discussion.
Amos14 wrote:Rian -
Thank you for your comments. Being new, I didn’t realize I posted in the wrong section! If I need to somehow move this topic, please let me know how and where. I was hoping that Scott and Emery would say something about their views on this subject, but perhaps I didn’t post it in a way that they would see and respond. Anyway, thanks for your help
Rian wrote:He still created them both.
Rian wrote:Certainly, if you know they're fictional. I don't see how you can think you could possibly know that, though. But you talk like you know for a certainty many things that you can't possibly know.
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, Dawkins rates himself a 6: "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Amos14 wrote: I would venture to say that listing differences could possibly lead to stereotypes
I think it’s important for a variety of reasons: scripturally, theologically, and pastorally. Scripturally because I know that the Bible contains both male and female metaphors about God. Theologically because I do not believe that God can be put in the “box” of being a male. And pastorally (when speaking about God in a public setting) because there are some who cannot relate to God in such a specific way.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests