God and Grammar
STEVEN.BOTTS
speaking of a person of either gender, as In "A student should always bring
his or her book when he or she comes to class"
Some years back, women began to object to the use of masculine pronouns in
sentences that could refer to either sex, and rightly so. I generally prefer
to go to a plural form or find a way to express myself in some manner that
avoids the use of gender pronouns.
When speaking of God, however, this becomes more difficult. When referring
to Yahweh, the God of the Bible, we use masculine pronouns without apology
because Yahweh was conceived of as male. Speaking outside of a Biblical
context however, I hear many people speaking of God as "she" or juggling
pronouns by switching back and forth between male and female referents.
This grates on my ear because it calls more attention to itself than to the
subject under
discussion and still assigns gender to God. I prefer to avoid all pronouns
when speaking
of God, even though sentences like "God created Humans so that God could
know Godself
sounds awkward. Does anyone have other ideas?
Steve
David L. Johnson
>
> I have always been put off by the use of "his or her" and "he or she" when
> speaking of a person of either gender, as In "A student should always bring
> his or her book when he or she comes to class"
> sounds awkward. Does anyone have other ideas?
There are two issues here, one being the intention of the speaker, and the
other being the limitations of the language. Many times the intention of the
speaker contains unspoken, perhaps even unconscious, prejudice that should be
laid bare. An example of that would be the claim that they looked through all
the applications and chose "the best man for the job". There are times when
people's unquestioned assumptions need exposure.
But when speaking of God, do we really mean to confer gender? Perhaps so, for
some, but for many of us the concept of God is quite beyond gender. When we
lift up our voices in praise to Him, wouldn't anyone of faith, assuming the
speaker is speaking in good faith (in all the senses of that) -- wouldn't the
intent be clear? We need to struggle to hear the Truth in all messages, not
only those that are gender-neutral.
We struggle to avoid prejudice in our selves, and in what we say. But our
language reflects our cultural history, which is full of prejudice. It is
difficult to say what we mean to say in a language that is built around a
different set of values, but it is all we have. Changes to the language,
changes in the meanings of words, come slowly -- and they come through the
larger culture, which is still plagued by prejudice. Artificial changes of
the language as an attempt to convey freedom from prejudice conveys more often
self-righteousness.
Plus, the use of plural pronouns when referring to a single person sounds ill
to my ears -- something between the "royal we" and simply poor grammar.
--
David L. Johnson
You will say Christ saith this and the apostles say this; but what canst
thou say? -- George Fox.
Joe Condon
|> I have always been put off by the use of "his or her" and "he or she" when
|> speaking of a person of either gender, as In "A student should always bring
Use of the form of the second person plural pronouns solves this problem.
"A student should always bring their when they come[s] to class".
This was discussed and approved by W. Safire in his NYTimes Mag.
column several years ago. If I remember correctly he preferred
"they comes" since we and making a new fourth third-person singular pronoun,
the "inclusive singular" so the verb should match singular.
"They comes" sounds ugly to me, but the logic is correct.
What is really ugly to me is the reflexive "themself", but I guess I just
have to get use to it. Here are some example usages from my personal archive;
:From owner-q...@yang.earlham.edu Tue Aug 18 18:25 EDT 1998
:From: ml...@IX.NETCOM.COM
...
> I call myself a Universalist because I believe that God moves into the
> heart of anyone, from any tradition, who truly opens themself in worship.
...
:From owner-q...@LISTSERV.RL.AC.UK Tue Jan 19 14:49 EST 1999
:From: John Warner <john....@LEATHERBEAR.DEMON.CO.UK>
...
George Fox who was very keen on the use of "thou" seems to have equated
the use of "you" (in the singular) to have been proud and haughty in
which the creaturely nature of humans overreaching themself (this is a
non-standard use of they (and its family of pronouns / adjectives) to
represent the singular and non-gender specific third person! ** I am not
intending to start another thread here!**).
...
> ... But where he got his earlier insights, well...each must decide for
> themself.
>
> In peace and love
> Adrian Glamorgan
> Canberra
I elided the usages by myself. There were twice as many usages of
"themself" where I would have written "themselves". One was ironic.
:From owner-q...@LISTSERV.RL.AC.UK Tue Jan 19 14:49 EST 1999
:From: John Warner <john....@LEATHERBEAR.DEMON.CO.UK>
> ...
> George Fox who was very keen on the use of "thou" seems to have equated
> the use of "you" (in the singular) to have been proud and haughty in
> which the creaturely nature of humans overreaching themself (this is a
> non-standard use of they (and its family of pronouns / adjectives) to
> represent the singular and non-gender specific third person! ** I am not
> intending to start another thread here!**).
> ...
<STEVEN...@prodigy.net> (straw man)-proposed alternating the gender
of the singular pronoun for God, about which he comments
> :This grates on my ear because it calls more attention to itself
> than to the subject under discussion ... .
Perhaps the same is true for the proposal for the 'inclusive singular'
(that has form identical to that of the plural third person) for God,
whose singualrity is True. Substituting 'God' for 'a student' we get
"God should always bring their book when they comes to class".
Capitalizing to 'Their' is for the eye, the ear connot detect that.
'A student' and 'God' are quite different, the former we assume (sometimes
wrongly) that the former does have one and only one sex which is
to be unspecified, whereas the later is both genders (well, let be
truly inclusive, all genders and none.) The point is, these two different
cases do not have to take the same pronoun form, singular animals
and singular people could take the new 'inclusive singular' pronoun
and God could be pronounless as STEVE sugests.
> I prefer to avoid all pronouns when speaking of God, even though
> sentences like "God created Humans so that God could know Godself"
> sounds awkward.
Joseph Condon, Summit (NJ) MM, NYYM. 78,524,109th among Friends.
David L. Johnson
> Use of the form of the second person plural pronouns solves this problem.
> "A student should always bring their when they come[s] to class".
> This was discussed and approved by W. Safire in his NYTimes Mag.
> column several years ago. If I remember correctly he preferred
> "they comes" since we and making a new fourth third-person singular pronoun,
> the "inclusive singular" so the verb should match singular.
Frankly, I don't see this as actually solving the problem. Usually, sentences
can be re-phrased to avoid such grammatical inconsistencies. I don't care
whether William Safire sanctioned them or not.
STEVEN.BOTTS
David L. Johnson <david....@lehigh.edu> wrote in message
news:3A11E694...@lehigh.edu...
> Joe Condon wrote:
>
> > Use of the form of the second person plural pronouns solves this
problem.
> > "A student should always bring their when they come[s] to class".
> > This was discussed and approved by W. Safire in his NYTimes Mag.
> > column several years ago. If I remember correctly he preferred
> > "they comes" since we and making a new fourth third-person singular
pronoun,
> > the "inclusive singular" so the verb should match singular.
>
> Frankly, I don't see this as actually solving the problem. Usually,
sentences
> can be re-phrased to avoid such grammatical inconsistencies. I don't care
> whether William Safire sanctioned them or not.
>
their books when they come to class", or something like that when I'm
talking about people. The difficulty is in talking about God.
Since most of us are monotheists, going to plural forms won't work. Saying
He, Him, and His sounds sexist, Saying She and Her sounds like a cutesy,
strained effort to be politicaly correct, and saying God, God's and Godself
seems awkward.
Steve
Steve
STEVEN.BOTTS
PQ Rada <pqr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001114194838...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> >tradition, who truly opens themself
into
> Modern languages. The word used was indeterminate of gender or included
> shadings of both male/female, and so male was preferred because of
cultural
> prejudice against women at the time of King James. and so we have been
> dominated unto death ever since called "Biblical."PQ
Actually, God seems to identify Godself with a female persona at some times.
For example, consider Deuteronomy 32:18:
You were unmindful of the rock that begot you
and you forgot the God who gave you birth.
or in Malachi 2:13-16
And this again you do. You cover the Lord's alter
with tears, with weeping and groaning because he
no longer regards the offering or accepts it with
favor at your hand. You ask. "Why does he not?"
because the Lord was witness to the covenant between
you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been
faithless,although she is your companion and your wife
by covenant. Has not the one God made and sustained
for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly
offspring. So take heed to yourselves and let none be
faithless to the wife of his youth. "For I hate divorce"
says the Lord God of Isreal, and covering one's garment
with violence , says the Lord of hosts. So take heed to
yourselves and do not be faithless.
Despite the use of male pronouns here, God seems to be in the role of wife
and
isreal in the role of husband, as opposed to passages in Isaiah, where God
is the husband
and Isreal the wife once rejected but now taken back.
Also, there's the maternal imagery in Isaiah 66:12-13:
Behold. I will extend prosperity to [Jerusalem] like a river
and the wealth of the nations like an overflowing stream;
and you shall suck, you shall be carried on her hip,
and dandled on her knees,
as one whom his mother comforts,
so I will comfort you;
you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
Steve
PQ Rada
Russell Nelson
> Joe Condon wrote:
>
> > Use of the form of the second person plural pronouns solves this problem.
> > "A student should always bring their when they come[s] to class".
> > This was discussed and approved by W. Safire in his NYTimes Mag.
> > column several years ago. If I remember correctly he preferred
> > "they comes" since we and making a new fourth third-person singular pronoun,
> > the "inclusive singular" so the verb should match singular.
>
> Frankly, I don't see this as actually solving the problem. Usually, sentences
> can be re-phrased to avoid such grammatical inconsistencies.
This is English we're talking about, David. No inconsistency is too
outlandish for English.
--
-russ nelson <s...@russnelson.com> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital.
Marshall Price
the gods) in the Bible!
PQ Rada wrote:
: >tradition, who truly opens themself
--
Marshall Price of Miami, Florida
d021...@dc.seflin.org : "Oh, to unfree one's heaven!"
Marshall Price
STEVEN.BOTTS wrote:
: Anyway, this isn't the problem. I can always say "Students should bring
: their books when they come to class", or something like that when I'm
: talking about people. The difficulty is in talking about God.
: Since most of us are monotheists, going to plural forms won't work. Saying
: He, Him, and His sounds sexist, Saying She and Her sounds like a cutesy,
: strained effort to be politicaly correct, and saying God, God's and Godself
: seems awkward.
--
Marshall Price
: Usually, sentences can be re-phrased to avoid such
: grammatical inconsistencies.
That's a cop-out.
The issue isn't whether the problem can "usually" be circumvented, it's
whether to compromise traditional grammar rules with modern desires for
more courteous and considerate forms of expression, and if so, how to do
it best.
My own preference is to avoid such compromises, because instituting them
may (1) encourage future generations to consider existing writings as
sexist, (2) make today's compositions seem absurdly dated someday, and (3)
set a terrible precedent for establishing newspeak.
In short, we should rend our hearts, and not our grammar. To those who
would project sexism upon writers whose concern for good grammar outweighs
their desires to promote contemporary conceptions of sexual politics, I
recommend reading more carefully. Sexists won't be able to hide their
spots, and the rest of us should not be expected to break such a
long-established rule as agreement in number between subject and verb.
There is a fourth reason we should not compromise, even more important
than the others. If we do so, we abandon the simple truth that "he" and
"him" are not and never have been words which imply that their referents
are male or masculine -- and abandoning the truth is rarely beneficial,
always wrong, and inevitably temporary.
(Admittedly, there are senses of those words which are used so, but the
existence of a sense which does not acquits the words themselves. As long
as "he" and "him" are not used in sexist ways, we ought not fear
misinterpretation.)
David L. Johnson
>
> Anyway, this isn't the problem. I can always say "Students should bring
> their books when they come to class", or something like that when I'm
> talking about people.
But you can re-phrase that as "Students should bring books when they come to
class"; the ownership of the book is not relevant. That same idea can be used
to clean up many of these apparently awkward references.
David L. Johnson
>
> David L. Johnson wrote:
> : Usually, sentences can be re-phrased to avoid such
> : grammatical inconsistencies.
>
> That's a cop-out.
Not really. Many of the examples have used rather strained grammar, anyway.
> The issue isn't whether the problem can "usually" be circumvented, it's
> whether to compromise traditional grammar rules with modern desires for
> more courteous and considerate forms of expression, and if so, how to do
> it best.
One does it by being direct, considerate, and courteous. If, with that basis,
the listener cannot get past the lack of a good genderless pronoun, then that
is itself an issue.
> In short, we should rend our hearts, and not our grammar.
Ah, I replied too quickly. We agree.
> To those who
> would project sexism upon writers whose concern for good grammar outweighs
> their desires to promote contemporary conceptions of sexual politics, I
> recommend reading more carefully. Sexists won't be able to hide their
> spots, and the rest of us should not be expected to break such a
> long-established rule as agreement in number between subject and verb.
I concur with you here, as well.
> There is a fourth reason we should not compromise, even more important
> than the others. If we do so, we abandon the simple truth that "he" and
> "him" are not and never have been words which imply that their referents
> are male or masculine -- and abandoning the truth is rarely beneficial,
> always wrong, and inevitably temporary.
Hmm. Here I am not so sure. In many such references, there is an implicit
assumption of maleness which needs to be examined at times. When I get a
referral for some medical test, invariably the office staff at the specialist
will ask something or other about my primary care physician, referring to her
as "he". I reply using the feminine pronoun where appropriate (but I don't
make a big deal of it), and it causes some embarassment. If the original
pronoun were really intended to imply masculinity, I don't think there should
be a reason for embarassment.
The point of all the hassle with pronouns is to address this kind of
assumption -- that a physician ought to be male, or a teacher, female. We
have come a long way, but we do have some way yet to go. I don't think we
should deny that the assumption is there, and we should speak carefully to not
allow such assumptions to pervade our own discourse. That does not mean
dodging pronouns entirely, and it certainly doesn't mean butchering the
language with incorrect use of plural pronouns. It means that we should think
about what we say, and about what is meant by what we hear. Do we mean to say
that God is male, or female? Or both, whatever that would mean? I personally
don't mean any of those things, nor do I mean to suggest that God is somehow
plural.
Joe Condon
In article <3A11E694...@lehigh.edu>, "David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh.edu> writes:
|> Joe Condon wrote:
|>
|> > Use of the form of the second person plural pronouns solves this problem.
|> > "A student should always bring their book when they come[s] to class".
|> > This was discussed and approved by W. Safire in his NYTimes Mag.
|> > column several years ago. If I remember correctly he preferred
|> > "they comes" since we and making a new fourth third-person singular pronoun,
|> > the "inclusive singular" so the verb should match singular.
|>
|> can be re-phrased to avoid such grammatical inconsistencies. I don't care
|> whether William Safire sanctioned them or not.
Although David states "Usually, sentences can be re-phrased to avoid such
grammatical inconsistencies.", he does not give any example. Please give an example
of a rephrasing of the sentence about 'a student' and 'book'. But see 1. below.
However
in article <8ut0dn$aji4$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "STEVEN.BOTTS" <STEVEN...@prodigy.net> writes:
|> ...
|> Anyway, this isn't the problem. I can always say "Students should bring
|> their books when they come to class", or something like that when I'm
|> talking about people. The difficulty is in talking about God.
|> Since most of us are monotheists, going to plural forms won't work. Saying
|> He, Him, and His sounds sexist, Saying She and Her sounds like a cutesy,
|> strained effort to be politicaly (sic) correct, and saying God, God's and Godself
|> seems awkward.
|>
1. The proposed sentence using the plural rather than the singular as in the
original example, now allows for a collective responsibility. The original
example was clear that each 'student should ...'. This is probably acceptable
to David since he choses to use the self-antonymic word 'sanction'.
2. There are two problems not "Anyway, this isn't >the< problem." as STEVE wrote.
(a) The avoidance of 'he and she' (and members of the declension) for people
whose gender we wish to leave undefined, and
(b) the need of a pronoun for God who is not a member of the class, people. I had
hoped I had made that clear in my earlier followup where I wrote:
> 'A student' and 'God' are quite different, the former we assume (sometimes
> wrongly) that the former does have one and only one sex which is
> to be unspecified, whereas the later is both genders (well, let me be
> truly inclusive, all genders and none.) The point is, these two different
> cases do not have to take the same pronoun form, singular animals
> and singular people could take the new 'inclusive singular' pronoun
> and God could be pronounless as STEVE suggests.
Perhaps I am wrong to hope that all members of this forum read. I have a
colleague two doors down the hall who is in 'speaks only' mode permanently,
I can handle that.
3. I did not suggest using plural for God, I did not even suggest using plural
for single people. I forwarded on a suggestion for a new 'inclusive singular
third-person pronoun' that when declined matches letter for letter the words
of declension of the plural third-person pronoun.
Repeating
in article <3A11E694...@lehigh.edu>, "David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh.edu> writes:
|> ...
|> Frankly, I don't see this as actually solving the problem.
|> ...
By defining the new 'inclusive singular third-person pronoun' to take the same
verb that the 'masculine singular third-person pronouns', 'feminine singular
third-person pronouns' and 'neuter singular third-person pronouns' take, there is
no problem. I doubt that the language can be changed without something grating
on someone's ear during the generation that the change takes place, I am willing
to put up with the grating on my ears.
Also I agree with
In article <m21ywda...@desk.crynwr.com>, Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> writes:
|> ...
|> This is English we're talking about, David. No inconsistency is too
|> outlandish for English.
|> ...
but the proposal is not inconsistent.
Ian Davis
Marshall Price <d021...@dc.seflin.org> wrote:
> The problem arises when the subject is singular -- not just divine!
>
But this belittles the real problem. One can easily be forgiven for
talking in the plural for most things, but I find my desire to be
gender neutral in what I write (and I try very hard) conflicts with
"The Lord thy God is one". It seems almost profain to talk about
God as they..
Ian.
--
Dr. Ian Davis E-mail: ijd...@solo.uwaterloo.ca
University of Waterloo Phone: (519)884-1629
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. N2L 3G1 http://solo.uwaterloo.ca/~ijdavis
STEVEN.BOTTS
> "STEVEN.BOTTS" wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, this isn't the problem. I can always say "Students should bring
> > their books when they come to class", or something like that when I'm
> > talking about people.
>
to
> class"; the ownership of the book is not relevant. That same idea can be
used
> to clean up many of these apparently awkward references.
>
just "Students should bring books". That's not the point. The point is
that it's difficult to find an appropriate pronoun
to designate God.
Steve
Joe Condon
In article <8uv9vu$871$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>, ijd...@solo.uwaterloo.ca (Ian Davis) writes:
|> In article <8uuhse$c...@nntp.seflin.org>,
|> Marshall Price <d021...@dc.seflin.org> wrote:
|> > The problem arises when the subject is singular -- not just divine!
|> >
|>
|> But this belittles the real problem. One can easily be forgiven for
|> talking in the plural for most things, but I find my desire to be
|> gender neutral in what I write (and I try very hard) conflicts with
|> "The Lord thy God is one". It seems almost profain to talk about
|> God as they..
|>
This thread is surreal.
The word 'thy' indicates to me that a pre mid-17th century text is
being quoted. However the KJV does not have the phrase above
in quotation marks. The KJV does have
MAT 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt
the Lord thy God. ,
MAT 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is
written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. ,
MAT 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ,
MAR 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, ,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength:
this is the first commandment. ,
LUK 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me,
Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him
only shalt thou serve. ,
LUK 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God. and
LUK 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with
all thy mind; .
It also has
DEU 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: ,
MAR 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is,
Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: and
GAL 3:20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. .
But the KJV does not have a conflation to "The Lord thy God is one".
Nevertheless 'thy' in the six synoptic gospel verses above is
the possessive of the singular second-person pronoun. It is
now generally replaced with 'your' which was at the time of the writing
of the KJV the possessive of the plural second-person pronoun.
In LUK4:12 Jesus is answering the devil (him) which is clear from :5.,
the 'Thou' and 'thy' are Jesus speaking of himself in the third
person quoting a commandment "DEU 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD
your God, as ye tempted him in Massah." He does not get the number
quite right, I am willing to forgive XXX, can thee?
XXX is a pronoun for Jesus, 'him' might do if I think of a non-deical
historical Jesus, otherwise if I think of Jesus as the deical substance
Christ then I want the pronoun that STEVEN wants.
Okay STEVEN, what pronoun do I use if I want to be non-committal about
the deity of Jesus? [:-)
For those who are unacquainted with King James Version and Shakespeare
here are the declensions of the 2nd-person pronoun.
Shakespeare/KJV
sing. plur.
Nom. thou ye
Obj. thee you
Poss. thy your
1660 onward except for some Quakers
sing. plur.
Nom. you you
Obj. you you
Poss. your your
I believe that the change was rapid and about the time of regicide.
Trying to eschew being profane
J Cheung
> Actually, God seems to identify Godself with a female persona at some
times.
Such problems occur when God is perceived as human like. But why do we want
to see God to be like us human beings with arms and legs ?
J Cheung
abby...@my-deja.com
He and She suggest something that is living, like a human being,
whereas "It" is the only other option, and usually is equated with
something less than He and She. For the sake of argument, I refer to
God as He, although I find I relate more the the feminine side.
I suppose through our egocentric history, nothing can surpass He and She
(at least not in the English language), although I find I can become
very well centered referring to God as The Light. But for now, the
pronoun will remain male for the most part. If I refer to God as She,
that will take away from the purpose of my post, as that would be the
first and foremost controversy of what I have to say.
Love and Light, Abby
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
STEVEN.BOTTS
J Cheung <NOSPAMs...@NOSPAM.singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:8v1ucv$7dj$1...@clematis.singnet.com.sg...
models based on something we do know. This is useful in that inables
us to think we have some kind of hold on the ineffable, but this always
leads into error, because models define and limit, and God cannot be
defined and limited.
Nevertherless, models have a certain limited usefulness. The ancient
Hebrews thought of God as a powerful and demanding warrior-king.
This concept served them well when they were building a nation.
Jesus spoke of a loving father-God when the Hebrews lived under the heavy,
oppressive thumb of Rome and their warrior-God seemed unable to do much
about it. Jesus addressed this God by the Hebrew equivalent of "Daddy" and
urged his followers to do likewise, assuring them that this "Abba" would
take
care of them if they would have the courage and the faith to trust him.
Steve
Steve
STEVEN.BOTTS
<abby...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8v26cm$i92$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Well said. For my part, I feel a little queasy when I hear God referred to
as
"He", and I definitely feel put off when God is called "She", since this
does nothing to counter the error of assigning gender to God.So I try to
avoid pronouns altogether in refference to God, although I sometimes
slip up and say "He", due to habits learned from childhood.
Steve
abby...@my-deja.com
"STEVEN.BOTTS" <STEVEN...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> Well said. For my part, I feel a little queasy when I hear God
referred to as "He", and I definitely feel put off when God is
called "She", since this does nothing to counter the error of assigning
gender to God.So I try to avoid pronouns altogether in refference to
God, although I sometimes slip up and say "He", due to habits learned
from childhood.
>
> Steve
>
not-so-pleasant experiences with my father gives me little enthusiasm
as referring to God as Father. In my personal relationship with God, I
get more fulfillment with a maternal being, one who is nurturing and
mellow, motherly and sisterly. Avoiding pronouns can be somewhat
laborious, though, as it is almost referring to God in third person -
or at least on a less intimate level. And as I said, "It" makes God
seem like a lifeless thing, or at least less intellingent - no thanks
to my language. I should, though, for the sake of at least trying, do
what you suggest and try to always refer to God as God - at least for a
month or so to see how easily (or not) I can adjust.
Charley Earp
>why do we want to see God to be like us
>human beings with arms and legs ?
Martin Luther King, Jr, said [I am quoting loosely] that we
'personalize' god not in order to bring god down to our level, but to
affirm that what is most noble in our natures has its source in the
divine being.
Charley Earp
Northside Friends Meeting, Chicago
[All statements and opinions are my own and not the responsibility of
NFM]
"For religion to become concrete would mean that its interest became an
interest not in the cherishing and fostering of religious feelings and
ideas in us, but in communion with persons - real flesh and blood
persons - in our actual world." John Macmurray - "The Maturity of
Religion."
PQ Rada
retrospective last night and how their music still moves me!!!! We lost a great
deal when we lost John.PQ
Marshall Price
confused with a thing, like "existence" or "the world." There are many
good reasons to consider Him more like a person than a rock or an
elephant.
J Cheung wrote:
: Such problems occur when God is perceived as human like. But why do we
: want to see God to be like us human beings with arms and legs ?
--
Marshall Price
appropriate. We're using "he" in the neutral sense; it's a neutral
pronoun in this sense, and a masculine pronoun in another.
abby...@my-deja.com wrote:
: But for now, the pronoun will remain male for the most part.
: If I refer to God as She...
Marshall Price
Who isn't?
But don't overlook the Elohistic passages, where God's name is plural:
"Elohim" in the Hebrew.
Ian Davis wrote:
: But this belittles the real problem. One can easily be forgiven for
: talking in the plural for most things, but I find my desire to be
: gender neutral in what I write (and I try very hard) conflicts with
: "The Lord thy God is one". It seems almost profain to talk about
: God as they..
--
Marshall Price
"oppressive" before the pax romana brought relief from the need for
constant military preparedness.
Roman rule brought great benefits throughout the empire (and especially
in the Holy Land), was not heavy and oppressive. For the most part, Rome
was careful not to disturb people and their cultures and establishments
any more than necessary -- though exceptions arose when individual
governors just didn't "get it."
(There are plenty of examples of heaviness and oppression among invaders
and empires which did not succeed. Rome put the lessons of history to
good use!)
STEVEN.BOTTS wrote:
: Jesus spoke of a loving father-God when the Hebrews lived under the
: heavy, oppressive thumb of Rome ...
STEVEN.BOTTS
Marshall Price <d021...@dc.seflin.org> wrote in message
news:8v94v2$i...@nntp.seflin.org...
> Life at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe was a lot more
> "oppressive" before the pax romana brought relief from the need for
> constant military preparedness.
> Roman rule brought great benefits throughout the empire (and especially
> in the Holy Land), was not heavy and oppressive. For the most part, Rome
> was careful not to disturb people and their cultures and establishments
> any more than necessary -- though exceptions arose when individual
> governors just didn't "get it."
> (There are plenty of examples of heaviness and oppression among invaders
> and empires which did not succeed. Rome put the lessons of history to
> good use!)
>
citizens of the nations they conquered co-oppressors of the poor. For
example, the Romans contracted with Hebrews to collect taxes from
the peasants. Rome expected a certain amount, but did not restrict the
amount the tax collectors could extract from the people.
The result of this was that many of the peasants were driven off the land.
the land itself was sold off for back taxes, usually to wealthy Hebrews who
had connections to still wealthier Hebrews who had connections to the
Romans.
The original owners now either became sharecroppers or else day laborers
who picked up jobs when and where they could. This was the case with the
family of Jesus. When we read in the scriptures that Joseph was a carpenter,
we are wrong to assume that he was a well-paid middle-class craftsman with
a shop of his own. He was a dispossessed peasant making a precarious living.
The Romans were happy to allow the practice of Judaism as long as they
had the power to choose the high priests and control what they did and said.
They looked on quite approvingly as Jew came to the temple and bought
animals to sacrifice to atone for their sins. The rich would buy nice fat
calves,
the sacrifice of which would free them from a lot of sins and the poor would
have
to be content with a dove or two, which would leave them with a heavy burden
of sin.
This was the kind of religion the Romans liked and Jesus objected to, hence
his arrest
and subsequent crucifixion after that disturbance he caused at the temple.
Steve
The Romans, by contaminating the integrity of Hebrew society, had done more
harm to the spirit
of the Hebrew people than if they had leveled the cities and towns and
enslaved the people.
STEVEN.BOTTS
Joe Condon <j...@research.att.com> wrote in message
news:G450s...@research.att.com...
> |> Marshall Price <d021...@dc.seflin.org> wrote:
> |> > The problem arises when the subject is singular -- not just divine!
> |> >
> |>
> |> But this belittles the real problem. One can easily be forgiven for
> |> talking in the plural for most things, but I find my desire to be
> |> gender neutral in what I write (and I try very hard) conflicts with
> |> "The Lord thy God is one". It seems almost profain to talk about
> |> God as they..
> |>
Use "He". Just make sure it always starts a sentence
Steve
abby...@my-deja.com
d021...@dc.seflin.org (Marshall Price) wrote:
> But unless you're using "he" to imply male gender, "male" isn't
> appropriate. We're using "he" in the neutral sense; it's a neutral
> pronoun in this sense, and a masculine pronoun in another.
>
unfortunately there is no agender equivalent to he/she, as "it" is
usually equated with something without life, or at least of a life form
considered to be less intelligent (that in itself is negotiable, but
this is for a different topic).
Marshall Price
abby...@my-deja.com wrote:
: "He" has been used as the default pronoun, and as I said,
: unfortunately there is no agender equivalent to he/she, as "it" is
: usually equated with something without life, or at least of a life form
: considered to be less intelligent (that in itself is negotiable, but
: this is for a different topic).
--
ECrownfiel
Price) writes:
> It isn't arms and legs that matter; it's mind and will. God mustn't be
>confused with a thing, like "existence" or "the world." There are many
>good reasons to consider Him more like a person than a rock or an
>elephant.
>
But few if any to consider Him/Her more like a male than like a female.
Elizabeth
PQ Rada
Marshall Price
but to my way of thinking, He seems more like a woman than a man.
On the other hand, my way of thinking is pitifully human! :(
Guy Macon
Marshall Price wrote:
>
> And He's probably more like a human being than a snail
> or a seahorse, but to my way of thinking, He seems more
> like a woman than a man. On the other hand, my way of
> thinking is pitifully human! :(
I am sure that the seahorse thinks God is more like a
seahorse than a human or snail...
If you want to be objective, it is obvious to even the
casual observer that God is much more interested in
beetles than in humans.
A group of theologians once asked British biologist
J.B.S. Haldane what his studies told him about the
nature of God. "An inordinate fondness for beetles",
he replied.
Let's look at the record;
There are 350,000 known species of beetles.
That's about one-quarter of all known animal species.
By contrast, mammals number only about 8,000 species.
God put forty times more effort into creating beetles
than he put into creating all mammals, and almost
four hundred thousand times more effort than he spent
creating humans.
Beetles have been around for over 250,000,000,000 years.
The oldest Neanderthal fossils are 200,000 years old,
and the oldest Homo sapiens fossils are roughly
100,000 years old.
God chose to spend over a million times as much time
with beetles than with people.
It's pretty obvious to me which kind of creature God
prefers to spend time with, and which kind of creature
God put the most time and effort into creating.
By the way, for those who think that Big Brains are the
sign of superiority, both Neanderthals* and Dolphins have
larger and more advanced brains than we do. (It is clear
to any thinking person that it is echolocation ability
that determines which species is more advanced.)
* Have you ever wondered why we always hear about
Homo Neanderthalensis and never about Homo Erectus?
The answer is simple; Neanderthal fits our prejudices
about "cavemen" - Short muscular, heavy jaws, "Apelike".
Nobody wants to show a picture of Erectus; taller than
we are, very thin, long legs and arms, small jaw.
It is also not commonly reported that Neanderthals had
bigger brains than we have.
STEVEN.BOTTS
Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:9069ak$o...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> Marshall Price wrote:
> >
> > And He's probably more like a human being than a snail
> > or a seahorse, but to my way of thinking, He seems more
> > like a woman than a man. On the other hand, my way of
> > thinking is pitifully human! :(
>
God's even more fond of
bacteria.
Steve
Guy Macon
STEVEN.BOTTS wrote:
>Guy Macon <guym...@deltanet.com> wrote:
Are you just saying that because of the millions of
Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, Eubacterium, Coliforms,
Streptococcus, Lactobacillus and Clostridium that you
are carrying around?
Thye following will tell you which species God
REALLY likes, and Bacteria aren't very high on
the list.
Group # of species
Bacteria and cyanobacteria 4,760
Fungi 46,983
Algae 26,900
Bryophytes (mosses
and liverworts) 17,000
Gymnosperms (conifers) 750
Angiosperms
(flowering plants) 250,000
Protozoans 30,800
Sponges 5,000
Corals and jellyfish 9,000
Roundworms and earthworms 24,000
Crustaceans 38,000
Beetles 350,000
Non-beetle insects 450,000
Other arthropods and
minor invertebrates 132,461
Mollusks 50,000
Echinoderms 6,100
Fishes (teleosts) 19,056
Amphibians 4,184
Reptiles 6,300
Birds 9,198
Mammals 4,170
Total species 1,435,662
Source: McNeely, J. A. et al. 1990. Conserving the World's
Biological Diversity. International Union for Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland; Wildlife
Research Institute, World Wildlife Fund, Conservation
International, and the World Bank, Washington, D.C.
abby...@my-deja.com
>>>guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) wrote:
>
> Marshall Price wrote:
> >
> >
> Beetles have been around for over 250,000,000,000 years.
>
> The oldest Neanderthal fossils are 200,000 years old,
> and the oldest Homo sapiens fossils are roughly
> 100,000 years old.
>
> God chose to spend over a million times as much time
> with beetles than with people.<<<
Perhaps on another planet, but on Earth it could not have been that many
years, as the planet itself is only approximately 2 billion years old.
Since bacteria dates back before beetles, they are a relatively "new"
species evern though the still are much older than mammals.
Marshall Price
message without including anything I wrote.
I know I wouldn't claim that beetles have been around since about 250
billion years *before* the Big Bang! (Not to mention Neanderthals
*predating* Homo sapiens, or dating back several times as far as the
Holocene!)
abby...@my-deja.com wrote:
: In article <9069ak$o...@dispatch.concentric.net>,
: >
: >
--
Guy Macon
>I know I wouldn't claim that beetles have been around since about 250
>billion years *before* the Big Bang!
Some would say that I made a typographic error, but I am working on
some way to claim that I obviously meant milliyears...
What's really embarrassing is I did it twice in one post!
>Not to mention Neanderthals *predating* Homo sapiens
You don't think Neanderthals predated Homo sapiens?
(I am using the common shorthand of "Homo sapiens" meaning
what we are; the full names are of course Homo sapiens
Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens)
From the City College Birmingham UK Website:
"Neanderthals existed between 230,000 and 30,000 years ago."
"Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 120,000 years ago."
http://www.citycol.ac.uk/launchpad.asp
http://www2.ebham.ac.uk/pkilcoyne/Human_origins/human_origins_web/human_origi
ns.htm
STEVEN.BOTTS
> >> God put forty times more effort into creating beetles
> >> than he put into creating all mammals, and almost
> >> four hundred thousand times more effort than he spent
> >> creating humans.
> >>
> >>
> >> The oldest Neanderthal fossils are 200,000 years old,
> >> and the oldest Homo sapiens fossils are roughly
> >> 100,000 years old.
> >>
> >> God chose to spend over a million times as much time
> >> with beetles than with people.
> >>
> >> prefers to spend time with, and which kind of creature
> >> God put the most time and effort into creating.
> >>
> >
> >If numbers and kinds are to be the criteria of what God
> >likes best, I'd say God's even more fond of bacteria.
>
> Are you just saying that because of the millions of
> Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, Eubacterium, Coliforms,
> Streptococcus, Lactobacillus and Clostridium that you
> are carrying around?
>
> Thye following will tell you which species God
> REALLY likes, and Bacteria aren't very high on
> the list.
OK, Guy. You have me on kinds, but God was spending time with bacteria long
before he thought
of beetles. And He had too make so many kinds because it was hard to get
them to do whatever it is He wants beetles to do.
Besides, He made a lot more individual bacteria than he made of anything
else.
If you doubt this, you are full of e. coli.
Steve
Ian Davis
STEVEN.BOTTS <STEVEN...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>OK, Guy. You have me on kinds, but God was spending time with bacteria long
>before he thought
>of beetles. And He had too make so many kinds because it was hard to get
>them to do whatever it is He wants beetles to do.
>
>Besides, He made a lot more individual bacteria than he made of anything
>else.
>If you doubt this, you are full of e. coli.
>
>Steve
I spend most of my life creating code with bugs in it.. it does not
necessarily follow that my intended goal is to create bugs. If I was
building a cathedral it would be a little unfair to suggest that my
motivation was that I liked changing the shape of rocks, or moving
them long distances. This isn't to suggest that humans are some how
superior to e. coli.. more that we are the e. coli aspiring to be
cathedral builders.
Ian.
--
Dr. Ian Davis E-mail: ijd...@solo.uwaterloo.ca
University of Waterloo Phone: (519)884-1629
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. N2L 3G1 http://solo.uwaterloo.ca/~ijdavis
Guy Macon
>OK, Guy. You have me on kinds, but God was spending time with bacteria long
>before he thought
>of beetles. And He had too make so many kinds because it was hard to get
>them to do whatever it is He wants beetles to do.
Point well taken. Who ever heard of a disobedient bacteria?
>Besides, He made a lot more individual bacteria than he made of anything
>else.
>If you doubt this, you are full of e. coli.
I sure hope so!
PMDavis
neanderthals predated Homo sapien sapiens, but also *dated* Homo sapien
sapiens. There seems to be some evidence of interbreeding in southern
Europe.
Guy Macon wrote in message <90eacu$8...@dispatch.concentric.net>...
abby...@my-deja.com
>>>>In article <90eacu$8...@dispatch.concentric.net>,
guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) wrote:
> Marshall Price wrote:
>
> >I know I wouldn't claim that beetles have been around since about 250
> >billion years *before* the Big Bang!
>
> Some would say that I made a typographic error, but I am working on
> some way to claim that I obviously meant milliyears...
>
> What's really embarrassing is I did it twice in one post!
>
> >Not to mention Neanderthals *predating* Homo sapiens
>
> You don't think Neanderthals predated Homo sapiens?
>
> (I am using the common shorthand of "Homo sapiens" meaning
> what we are; the full names are of course Homo sapiens
> Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens)<<<<
>
While one may have come around before the other, it has been questioned
as to if they did indeed coexist, as well as the Cromagnon. The actual
history of mankind has been dated from 40,000 to 100,000 years, which
leaves much room for error. It is alse theorized that people today are
infact co-existant of each other, that is the remains of homosapiens
being found in Asia approx. the same time found in Africa.
PQ Rada
Neanderthals, robustus and Sapiens sapiens. We are notlooking at a line we are
looking at a bush. New cave evidence has shown convincingly that they shared,
that is neanderthals and Sapiens lived side by side for nearly 40,000 years. We
donot yet know the significance of this overlap.
as for interbreeding the vote is still out on that,re: recent Election.:) We,
human beings were quick to expand our range once the ice receded. I personally
do not agree wqith the 100,000 years date I think we have been around much
longer, and altho there was no culture bearing Atlantis I do think there was a
superior civilization somewhere that did transmit much to the simpler ones. Way
too many coincidences
all over the world to say we were so simple so long and the time frame too
small for the developments of Egypt, which now seems to have arisen all in a
leap. Dr. Hawass of Egypt has traced the orderly developments over time of many
things once thought to have sprung up from nowhere.PQ