Of course God is a "he", everyone knows God has killer abs/chest and a sexy beard.
No wonder people worship it.
His body is so sweet, an he looks like he knows every thing that is or has been (and will be, possibly). Every man would like to look like him when they grow older, and every woman would love a man resembling the Lord to hold her in his arms.
If I had only half of his beard I think My life would be changed.
I'll get into whether its the default pronoun in a second, but "he" definitely does reflect masculinity.
Now, I agree with you that "he" is the default pronoun. However, it became the default pronoun because of female oppression in the past. As a result of this, men were able to raise their own status, which in turn resulted in many of the gender biased default pronouns that exist in many languages today.
So maybe I didn't word my post correctly. What I was trying to get at is that god SHOULD be gender ambiguous as it is a concept, but it is not because of the many patriarchal societies that have contributed to the idea of god.
Traditionally, "he" does not necessarily reflect gender masculinity. The pronoun was used for any group of people whose gender was unknown.
The point which you brought up about "he" being used traditionally because of the oppression of women is true. But at this point, the idea of God being called "He" is so engraved into religious culture that changing the pronoun to a gender ambiguous one is basically not going to happen any time soon. At this very moment in time, yes; perhaps God should have a gender ambiguous pronoun. But at the time of the beginning of Christianity, "He" was perfectly acceptable. And one cannot use only present information in determining what should be used; tradition and culture and history are vitally important, too.
I don't think of it as strange
he is used to describe gender neutral objects as well
the gender neutral pronoun for singular is "it"
using it as a pronoun can be disrespectful
if I was a hermaphrodite
I would hate the feeling someone gave me from saying "It did it. Look at it. It passed me the papers yesterday."
But god isn't a hermaphrodite, it's a concept that should not be assigned a gender. Of course, It is pretty obvious why the pronoun "he" is used, considering religion's sexist roots.
there's no gender neutral singular pronoun in the English language or the Arabic language
he is used to describe gender neutral objects
he can mean gender neutral
this occurs outside of religion too
Of course it can, but "she" can be used in that context as well.
My point is: in this instance, god is commonly referred to as "he" because the men of the time wanted to show their superiority.
that still happens today
are you saying that people use he for gender neutral objects to show male superiority?
I don't think so
if not all languages do this
Spanish/French will refer to a group as male even if there is a mix of male and female
mankind includes females
there's man in woman
that's how language is set up
and language is written in a way people can understand
it's obvious that he is not being used to mean male
Maybe the religious use of masculine pronouns came from languages. Yet, where did the use of masculine pronouns come from IN the language? Possibly sexist roots, eh?
do realize masculine pronouns aren't always masculine anyways
the pronouns can be used simply as a placeholder
as the pronoun "it" is disrespectful"
even someone who has the organs of both male and female would feel hurt when called "it" so other pronouns are used as substitutes
it's a consistency through every single language I know
you name it
what mention is there of one gender being superior to another?
I don't know how many times I have to says this
masculine pronouns do not mean the subject is masculine or male
get it now?
did you even read all that I've been saying on this post?
I have. And I'm saying that what you're saying doesn't answer the question of why pronouns that are typically masculine are used to refer to neutrality. Why not typically feminine pronouns?
I really don't know for sure
but it seems malicious and incorrect to blame people as being sexist for doing that when bad things have masculine pronouns attached to them too
Women have been subordinate for thousands of years in different cultures. I wouldn't say it's malicious, but more realistic.
women have been and still are mistreated
BUT that doesn't mean pronouns deal with that
I think it's malicious considering masculine pronouns are used for both good and bad things
it's not like where they beat women up or didn't let women vote
referring to inanimate objects both good and bad doesn't portray one gender as more superior
Well I guess in the end, neither of us can know the beginning of the custom.
well innocent until proven guilty
looks innocent to me
And the other way for moi
good thing you don't run the law system or lot of innocent people would be locked up just for being accused
societies have been and still are misogynist
but that doesn't mean that part of language (pronoun) is like that
I see nothing that proves such
the burden of proof is on you
and you haven't proved it
I realize that. I'm not saying I know for sure. But I'm looking at how societies used to be. It makes sense to me that a bunch of men who, because of the society, believed men to be better than women made up how languages are. Men need to attribute a pronoun to the greatness that is god. The last thing they'd call god is a "weak, stupid" she.
well men back then referred to nature as "mother nature"
don't see people claiming sexism on that
they saw the strength and power of nature
and still referred to it as "mother nature"
but if there is just one hermaphrodite
it doesn't make grammatical sense to say they, them, etc.
refer back to Spanish/French example
words like mankind
these phrases don't exclude women
they either address that there is no gender
or that both genders are present
and I disagree that it means male is default and that anything else (female) is secondary
women are people too
so it makes sense to use the same words for people
one doesn't have to always differentiate between genders
sometimes, it's enough to just describe all people with one word regardless of gender
plus, the meanings of words aren't constant
and your example is grammatically incorrect
My English teacher got on our cases for that a lot
I didn't say anything is invalid
so I don't know what you're talking about
you're gonna have to me more specific because that comment is pretty vague
considering you're saying stuff like "putting it" "anything", "because of it" etc.
what it? what things?
I'm putting it in your face too
it's not like I'm hiding my words
nor did I say you're hiding your words
difference of opinion =/= ridiculous
the connotation of guys and he are not not limited to males
so I agree that connotation is important
connotations are what help support my position because I am saying that there are multiple connotations to words like he, guys, etc.
the connotations involved allow for those words (he, guys) to not be limited to just male
some people refer to their cars as "she"
"she's a beauty"
that doesn't mean female supremacy or that female is the default there
the car obviously doesn't have a gender
is calling nature "mother nature" female supremacy?
it's just a way of setting language up
the rest of my comment (except the last section) is gonna digress because it's in response to your digressions
you're the one throwing around words like ridiculous and "it's not a hard concept"
you're the one talking down to me
and I didn't say you were incorrect
yet again, you're digressing
and you're trying to put words in my mouth by saying I said "it" was invalid and that you were incorrect (I didn't say either of those things yet you somehow got that)
you said you're not in the mood
well that's probably influencing how you read my comments
quote me where I said invalid
you're reading things that aren't there
I didn't have a snarky tone
if you could hear me say these comments
you wouldn't think so
that's off topic
and you're digressing
quote me where I said you're incorrect
I said the example was grammatically incorrect
I didn't say your argument or you were incorrect
no you weren't clear
your entire comment was vague
I think you're the one picking at things by bringing up stuff like snarky tone, incorrectness that was about grammar and not you, and saying I was picking at things when I genuinely wanted clarification
Did I say it's a hard concept?
more digressing and picking at things
they didn't use a separate word
why is that?
I don't know the origin of these words
maybe it's not anything deep
that's just the way most, if not all languages are set up
it's a common theme in language
it doesn't mean it's because of male supremacy
see example where it's not female supremacy either in the beginning
And how would you know that?
Raymond isn't being serious
Ok cool, though I always do like an idiot to argue with.
I love it. I absolutely love it.
I don't like that Raymond
Yes and no. It's not strange since this has been the de facto pronoun for "Him" for as long as he's been a concept.
I'm not saying it's strange in that it's new and different. I'm saying it's strange in that it doesn't make sense if we look at god as the concept (or if you really want, divine being) that it probably isn't.
Yes but if you consider that he supposedly created Adam in his own image, and that Adam was a man it sheds a little more light on the why I suppose. I agree that it is strange but as I originally stated, yes and no.
Yeah, but humanity as a whole is supposedly created in god's image.
It does make sense that god is referred to as a male, it's just sexist. The men who wrote the bible wanted to enforce their own "superiority". They would have wholeheartedly agreed with the point that you just made there.
it's not sexist
that's like saying it's sexist to say he/she because he comes first
that's like saying it's sexist calling nature "mother nature"
obviously nature is gender neutral
but referred to as she
that doesn't mean this is females trying to enforce their own superiority
God is God and does not have human/animal attributes like gender
this is a widely accepted belief of most followers of any monotheistic religion including Abrahamic ones and not
my view is that Islam is not sexist
"1400 years back, Islam gave women the right to: own and dispose property and earnings without guardianship over her, to be educated, and to go out for work, to choose their husbands, and to keep their own family names, to inherit, and many more...when the rest of the world, including Europe, women had no such rights"
here's something about Islamic feminism: http://www.onislam.net/english/...-feminism.html
it's the site I always refer to
if that person lives in Iran
than that's a heavy influence
that talks about women staying at home
but the quote I gave clearly says women can work
they can keep their own names
it's still pretty normal in America for women to take the last name of their husbands
I think that's pretty sexist
but this trait is not the norm for Muslims
another thing to note that Pre-Islamic Arabia was very patriarchal and sexist towards women
female babies were buried alive
and Islam came along and condemned those actions
however, these things still occur today despite condemning such
for example honor killings are forbidden in Islam
but they still occur in places like Pakistan and India
and many other places
in Saudi Arabia
women can't drive
something is being done about that at the moment
but how ridiculous is that?
to not let women drive when past women in Saudi Arabia used to ride Camels (which is that time periods equivalent of a vehicle)
the heavy patriarchal culture is still here unfortunately
but it's slowly getting better
this is a cultural thing though
it is not haram for women to vote or drive
so why are these men and women forbidding such?
it's because patriarchal ideas are deeply rooted in their culture
if you go to more liberal Muslim countries
you'll find more equality
I don't think America or any country has reached gender equality
Islam marked a stark progress in women's rights. For example:
At a time when the word of a woman didn't get any consideration, Islam stated that the word of a woman was worth half that of a man.
Islamic countries were likely to be more advanced that most western societies in terms of women's rights. The thing is, women's consideration drastically improved in western societies eversince, while not much in Islamic countries. And even if some of it got amended by Imams, the Quran didn't change a single bit.
Please correct me if I said something wrong.
but a lot those countries are developing and poor
India is also still developing
it is a Hindu majority
where there are honor killings
Pakistan is Muslim majority
it is also developing
and there are honor killings
what do these two territories have in common?
they're both developing and pretty poor
then there are countries with deeply rooted cultural aspects
despite Islam giving women rights
they refuse to give women these rights
forced marriages are forbidden in Islam
yet they occur
blaming victims and all kinds of atrocities
such is not allowed by Islam
but still occur
there's no Original Sin in Islam and periods/ pregnancies aren't seen as a punishment
you'll have to quote where it says that about a women's words
I'll state something
and it'll sound bitter
but it's kinda hard for these places to progress when people are bombing them back to the the Stone Ages because these people want their oil
The Prophet said, "Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind." (Bukhari)
well you should know that wasn't said in English
that's a translation
I can assure you that someone's mind is not deficient because she is female
and there have been cases of one woman witnesses
"Weak Translation of Hadith Misleads Readers: A Clarification of the Meaning of ‘Aql and Jariya"
Okay, it did not occur to me that such widespread translations would be inaccurate.
However, the clarification of the translation made by the article you linked do not go against my original claim (that a woman's testimony weighs half that of a man, according to the Quran):
"" The Arabic is fazalika min nuqsan-e-aqaleha, which should be translated as: “That is owing to her lack of understanding.” ""
Now it's "their lack of understanding", not much better...
The article also states, like you did, that a women's testimony was once considered as much as a man's... But then, why is it said otherwise in the Quran ?
it's not about translations being inaccurate
at least not entirely
it's about what a word can mean and imply in different languages and in different time periods
if what is false?
I didn't say the hadith was false
lack of understanding could be that women back then and even today weren't involved in certain areas
thus, they did not have the knowledge of certain topics
it's not that females can't understand
it's that they were prevented from doing so because of misogynistic surroundings
due to past and current discrimination, women are still lacking in a lot of areas
cue glass ceilings, and stopping females from school/work
most Qur'anic verses don't make references to genders
and by Islamic law, in general, the rule of thumb is to have 2 witnesses (even if they're both male)
But don't you think it's misleading ?
Doesn't it create misunderstanding, and misconceptions about how women should be considered ?
I'll note something else from that link:
"Readers should notice how many different factors could come in to create misgivings and misunderstanding about Hadith. We all have much to learn. Those who are translating holy books into English are often quite deficient in their English."
so the language barrier
if a person that has been nurtured in a misogynistic culture reads something
they'll find that such misogynistic nurturing influences the way they interpret
if I was misogynist
I would just accept it if someone told me that females are inferior in some way without looking into it
I probably wouldn't even know that I'm misogynist because it's so widely accepted
since I am for equal rights
I looked into it further to understand
the equalness of men and women has been ingrained into my head by the scholars from On Islam so there was no way I was gonna accept that women are inferior
got another something:
God should be a gender neutral concept. I don't think many people actually think of God as a 'he.' But considering the social attitudes of the time, I'm not surprised that it's the pronoun they used.
We don't think about whether he's "he" or "she", but most people seem to picture him as an old man in the sky.
depending on faith and which gods and religious writings you follow.
I think there are a couple of reasons for this. As others have said, he is the default pronoun for people, especially around the time that the Bible was written and became more widespread. During this same period of time, men were always thought of as the dominant, strong, and powerful ones, and when you think about it, people often use these exact same adjectives to describe God. It can be agreed upon that majority of the world didn't believe women could or should be dominant or strong, so it makes perfect sense to assign God the same pronoun that men receive.