So far on this thread, it strikes me that most of the examples of "feminine" images of God (leaving aside grammatical notions of gender) are actually about motherhood. In relation to this, I note that "accounts that equate the feminine and the maternal" are "typical of patriarchal understandings of femininity".
While that’s a fair point, how does it factor in that many of the specifically “masculine” images—not pronoun references, but images of God in male terms—are about fatherhood?
Linguistic Relatively, aka weak form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
I wonder if how much individuals do or don't think in words affects this?
I first came across this concept in relation to programming languages, which is one of the broad range of aspects covered in the wikipedia article:
The essays of Paul Graham explore similar themes, such as a conceptual hierarchy of computer languages, with more expressive and succinct languages at the top. Thus, the so-called blub paradox (after a hypothetical programming language of average complexity called Blub) says that anyone preferentially using some particular programming language will know that it is more powerful than some, but not that it is less powerful than others. The reason is that writing in some language means thinking in that language. Hence the paradox, because typically programmers are "satisfied with whatever language they happen to use, because it dictates the way they think about programs".
It was only after I started learning to program in languages which (strongly) disfavour a procedural paradigm that I realised I was starting to use multiple (non-procedural) paradigms to analyse the real-world systems which defined the criteria and parameters for the programs I was working on.
In relation to your question about to whether linguistic relativity is affected by the extent to which people think in words, I remember thinking that programming is a highly conceptual, non-linguistic activity - it starts with a very blank canvas (actually, it starts the level before the canvas, where you get to choose if a flat two-dimensional canvas is what you want). But it occurs to me that it's presumably possible for programmers to "think" in the code (syntax and grammar) of a particular language.
In contrast, and less technically, I also liked what Steven Pinker, who's a universalist (but not in that sense!), had to say:
Currently many believers of the universalist school of thought still oppose linguistic relativity. For example, Pinker argues in The Language Instinct that thought is independent of language, that language is itself meaningless in any fundamental way to human thought, and that human beings do not even think in "natural" language, i.e. any language that we actually communicate in; rather, we think in a meta-language, preceding any natural language, termed "mentalese". Pinker attacks what he terms "Whorf's radical position", declaring, "the more you examine Whorf's arguments, the less sense they make".
We may think in a natural language, or we may not think in any language, - I believe both - but I am I think quite confident that we do not think in a meta-language that might be appropriately called "mentalese".
How does Jael figure in some account of femininity? Is it patriarchal because its authors were patriarchal?
Or should some of the perceived masculine images of God also be recognised as feminine?
Some searching reveals that Jael figures in a range of perspectives on gender, and more besides. One thought-provoking article is Reading Jael with Women from a Traumatized Community, which engages with various contemporary and historical issues. It points out that:
Throughout the book of Judges, norms presented in the Deuteronomist History (DH) are challenged. Things are not as they appear. Jael is one example of this: she is presented as a hero for Israel and yet initially she has mixed allegiance to both Israel and the Canaanite enemy.
...
In DH, women traditionally appear on the margins of narratives (in the roles of mother, wife, or daughter). However, in this book they play key roles because “the subject of the book is marginalization”.
So far on this thread, it strikes me that most of the examples of "feminine" images of God (leaving aside grammatical notions of gender) are actually about motherhood. In relation to this, I note that "accounts that equate the feminine and the maternal" are "typical of patriarchal understandings of femininity".
While that’s a fair point, how does it factor in that many of the specifically “masculine” images—not pronoun references, but images of God in male terms—are about fatherhood?
This suggests to me the point already made by several people on this thread, that these images are more illustrative of parenthood, and that any notions of masculinity and femininity that we see are more to do with the projection of prevailing socio-cultural ideas about gender.
We may think in a natural language, or we may not think in any language, - I believe both - but I am I think quite confident that we do not think in a meta-language that might be appropriately called "mentalese".
I'm not sure. Not at a conscious level, certainly, but while normally I can't think without words being involved there are times when I know there's a word for what I want to say but it eludes me for the moment - so there must be some mental process I'm thinking that concept in, which Pinker calls Mentalese. Pinker's argument, as I understand it, is that our thoughts are originated in this Mentalise and put into language to communicate or consciously consider them - once we actually acquire language. Prior to acquisition we are of course limited to this Mentalese.
I think there are two potential downfalls in interpretation:
1. Assuming there was nothing else they could write, and so interpreting writing irrespective of the original context.
2. Claiming that there is nothing indicating the feminine because of the context in which they were all writing - which was highly patriarchal.
Jael is a great example. As is Deborah. Both strong women, both taking action as needed. Maybe not specifically as images of God, but as indicators that women have an important place. Deborah within the patriarchy, Jael using he feminine wiles to create an opportunity.
Oh, and Deborah again for making a big song and dance about it.
We may think in a natural language, or we may not think in any language, - I believe both - but I am I think quite confident that we do not think in a meta-language that might be appropriately called "mentalese".
I'm not sure. Not at a conscious level, certainly, but while normally I can't think without words being involved there are times when I know there's a word for what I want to say but it eludes me for the moment - so there must be some mental process I'm thinking that concept in, which Pinker calls Mentalese. Pinker's argument, as I understand it, is that our thoughts are originated in this Mentalise and put into language to communicate or consciously consider them - once we actually acquire language. Prior to acquisition we are of course limited to this Mentalese.
It appears that language of thought (LOT, or Mentalese) has been around a lot longer than Steven Pinker - William of Ockham addressed it in Summa Logicae, for example.
As well as the ever-annoying search for elusive words, I'm often frustrated by the constraint of spoken (and thus written) language having sequential form - being one dimensional - where the only option is to put one word after another. It seems to me that what I'm thinking sometimes involves a more interconnected relationship between concepts than I'm able to express linguistically. (And there's only so much you can do with brackets.) I think this bears some resemblance to the concept of cognitive maps, although research tends to focus on their relevance to navigation (including in other species).
To me the use of the male for God is basically because that is how best the people understood God. A loving father. God is not human so gender doesn’t necessarily apply. To say either he or she is equally untrue. Tradition has us using the masculine. I am ok with that. If tradition had using the feminine I would not be unhappy.
Well, it's how SOME people best understand/understood God. I'm blocked, though with God's help I'm starting to get past it. Oddly enough, I've got no problem with thinking of God as my Father-in-law (by analogy--the whole church-as-bride-of-Christ business). My earthly father-in-law was a sweetheart. But for the sake of those who have problematic earthly relationships that have formed how they think about fathers and/or men, it's good to have some flexibility in how we care for them.
Temple Grandin has an excellent book called Visual Thinking which explores the issues around how people think with and without language--there's a sizable number of us who think in pictures, not words (I'm one, which is odd in a writer). Though even I find that I'm limited in WHAT I can think about without using words--I can handle the concrete, but trying to do philosophy or any but the most basic theology defeats me. I think it's the knowledge that the concrete images aren't doing the concepts justice.
To me the use of the male for God is basically because that is how best the people understood God.
As @Lamb Chopped well says, how we best relate to God is very personal. I myself don't understand what binary gender is and why y'all want it.* So I find it very weird that people often want to give God first person of the Trinity (GfpT), binary pronouns. After all, GfpT does not have a body or any other reason for me to assume they have gender. That said, I am aware that it is a normal and healthy way to relate to GfpT. I presume GfpT is fine with it. However, to me it's utterly obvious that GfpT would use they/them pronouns. It's not traditional but it's what personally works for me. For that reason, I find it disturbing when people avoid maternal images of GfpT. Those are just as natural, but I have known some guys who found them threatening. (Their word was "weird.")
*Though I completely respect everyone's right to have a binary gender of course.
To me the use of the male for God is basically because that is how best the people understood God. A loving father.
The value of a thread like this one is that it reminds us that while “loving father” is one way God is understood in Scripture, God is also portrayed in Scripture in many other ways, including as a loving mother.
To me the use of the male for God is basically because that is how best the people understood God. A loving father.
The value of a thread like this one is that it reminds us that while “loving father” is one way God is understood in Scripture, God is also portrayed in Scripture in many other ways, including as a loving mother.
Yes I know. I was just giving a reason for the use of father where it is used. Nothing else. The use of they indicated that. The text is the text.
To me the use of the male for God is basically because that is how best the people understood God. A loving father.
The value of a thread like this one is that it reminds us that while “loving father” is one way God is understood in Scripture, God is also portrayed in Scripture in many other ways, including as a loving mother.
Yes I know. I was just giving a reason for the use of father where it is used. Nothing else. The use of they indicated that. The text is the text.
I’m sorry; I’m afraid I’m not following. What use of “they” indicated what?
Temple Grandin has an excellent book called Visual Thinking which explores the issues around how people think with and without language--there's a sizable number of us who think in pictures, not words (I'm one, which is odd in a writer). Though even I find that I'm limited in WHAT I can think about without using words--I can handle the concrete, but trying to do philosophy or any but the most basic theology defeats me. I think it's the knowledge that the concrete images aren't doing the concepts justice.
I have a friend who thinks almost completely in terms of visual images (which includes words, in his case). We've come to the conclusion that he is almost completely incapable of abstract thought - not so much because his mental images don't do abstract concepts justice, but because he's unable to construct mental images of abstract concepts and, if he can't think about something visually, he's unable to engage in any conceptual reasoning about it at all.
That's rather extreme, but it would explain my personal difficulties with deep philosophy.
I mostly think verbally but I find most deep philosophical discussion totally incomprehensible. I'd give my right arm to understand what Pease and AFF were going on about the other day.
That's rather extreme, but it would explain my personal difficulties with deep philosophy.
That is probably not the reason. It might be because it is pretty inpenetrable.
Interestingly, I am definitely a visual thinker, but enjoy the abtruse depths of philosophy. Maybe - and this is very possible - because I like to turn these concepts into visual ideas, so I make the concepts practical and visual.
Or maybe I am just mad, which is also very possible.
To me the use of the male for God is basically because that is how best the people understood God. A loving father.
The value of a thread like this one is that it reminds us that while “loving father” is one way God is understood in Scripture, God is also portrayed in Scripture in many other ways, including as a loving mother.
Yes I know. I was just giving a reason for the use of father where it is used. Nothing else. The use of they indicated that. The text is the text.
I’m sorry; I’m afraid I’m not following. What use of “they” indicated what?
Those who follows the tradition of using father in the text.
Regarding God and Their pronouns, I've been thinking about Gwai's point about God not having a body, and other aspects of the pronouns we use and what they signify. I think there could be several reasons for not using any corporeal pronouns for God (pronouns that we might use for humans and other corporeal beings), whether binary, gender-neutral or other.
Gender is not the only characteristic that God does not possess by virtue of being incorporeal - limitedness is another, in the sense of not having a finite boundary between Them and Their surroundings, or in the sense of not having surroundings.
Another reason for not using corporeal pronouns is how they reflect God's nature as God - God is not just "not like us" in terms of incorporeality or limitedness, They are also not like us qualitatively - They are divine, sacred, beyond our understanding.
A third reason relates to the more grammatical or semantic issue of what pronouns indicate (or signify). In the case of possessive pronouns, God's (incorporeal) relationship to the thing "possessed" is in a different category from ours. The statement "this is God's house" suggests a very different kind of relationship from a human being asserting "this is my house". Using the same pronoun to describe both these relationships, as in "this is their house", blurs the distinction. In contrast, using "this is Their house" to describe God's relationship preserves a distinction about God's being, nature, qualities and characteristics.
No, using capitals to carry a new kind of meaning when people are already using them for at least two other meanings is not going to be helpful, believe me. Better to find a new pronoun altogether.
@pease I've thought about just not using pronouns for God to accent God's godness and difference from the rest of us. But when I try it out for myself it feels more boring than set aside.
No, using capitals to carry a new kind of meaning when people are already using them for at least two other meanings is not going to be helpful, believe me. Better to find a new pronoun altogether.
And capitals are irrelevant for spoken language.
Yes, @Gwai, it can be boring or stilted to avoid pronouns*. Languages have them for a good reason. But as one who has opportunities to write liturgy from time to time, I find it a good exercise to try to spend some time looking for ways to avoid pronouns while still retaining a sense of poetry. It takes practice and a bit of creativity.
* I think we’re mainly talking about third-person pronouns. “You” doesn’t present gender issues. Some contemporary liturgical texts, such as psalms, deal with the issue by switching from third- to second-person, but that doesn’t always work.
@Nick Tamen Completely agreed. And whatever we come up with, the process of thinking about how to do it is good. It's good to analyze how we think about God. When I read scripture aloud in church, which I do somewhat regularly, I do not use gendered pronouns for the first person of the Trinity. And figuring out how to do that smoothly, without distracting from the passage, is good practice. It means thinking about the passage, about why I think the writer chose the words they did and whatnot.
I have a major problem with the use of the third person plural pronoun in referring to God. To me, that implies the Trinity has three separate gods. But then, I also have a problem referring to a transgender or nonbinary person in the third person plural pronoun too. I admit it. I am old. Some things are deeply ingrained. Still, when it comes to God, I just prefer using the proper title for God as much as I can.
No, using capitals to carry a new kind of meaning when people are already using them for at least two other meanings is not going to be helpful, believe me. Better to find a new pronoun altogether.
Fair enough. I like the idea of creating more þ pronouns - thel/thoi:
“Seek God while thel can be found, Call to thoi while thel are near.”
Using regular they/them pronouns:
“Seek God while they can be found, Call to them while they are near.”
@pease I've thought about just not using pronouns for God to accent God's godness and difference from the rest of us. But when I try it out for myself it feels more boring than set aside.
Indeed - it's not very engaging:
“Seek God while God can be found, Call to God while God is near.”
Revised Jewish Publication Society (2023), a gender-sensitive translation:
“Seek GOD while you can, Call out while [God] is near.”
Jewish Publication Society (1985), the previous version:
“Seek the LORD while He can be found, Call to Him while He is near.”
...And capitals are irrelevant for spoken language.
I wouldn't say capitals are completely irrelevant - speech allows for a wide range of nuanced emphases that can be suggested by a variety of means in written language.
I have a major problem with the use of the third person plural pronoun in referring to God. To me, that implies the Trinity has three separate gods. But then, I also have a problem referring to a transgender or nonbinary person in the third person plural pronoun too. I admit it. I am old. Some things are deeply ingrained. Still, when it comes to God, I just prefer using the proper title for God as much as I can.
I see God as Cheesecake. Three separate parts but one cake. Each layer has a name but the whole thing is a cheesecake. Now of course all comparisons fall apart and I would think some people will find it a bit disrespectful but it helps me
I have a major problem with the use of the third person plural pronoun in referring to God. To me, that implies the Trinity has three separate gods. But then, I also have a problem referring to a transgender or nonbinary person in the third person plural pronoun too. I admit it. I am old. Some things are deeply ingrained. Still, when it comes to God, I just prefer using the proper title for God as much as I can.
I see God as Cheesecake. Three separate parts but one cake. Each layer has a name but the whole thing is a cheesecake. Now of course all comparisons fall apart and I would think some people will find it a bit disrespectful but it helps me
A new trinitarian formula is getting more traction--well not so new. Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer. ...
Modalism isn't the only reason why that one doesn't work for me. It's a usage much favoured by someone I know well and respect, but that doesn't stop it from grating me inwardly every time I hear it. To me, I hear it as denying the personality of God, both in Trinity and in the individual personalities of the members of the Trinity. It is seeing God as just a sort of worthy impersonal abstract entity or cluster of entities. It's rather like my dislike of the use of 'it' as the pronoun for the Holy Spirit. True, the Holy Spirit does not have a gender, but 'it' in English usage is the pronoun for a thing. It's much more important to me to make sure that one recognises that the Holy Spirit is a person, than that one discomforts anyone by referring to the Holy Spirit as 'he' - or, I suppose, 'she' but whether one likes it or not, as far as English usage is concerned, 'she' is much more specifically gendered than 'he'.
@stetson wrote ... And, traditionally, a country was referred to as "she", ...
Was it? Not by me, it isn't. My apologies but it's a usage I've always found unbearably pretentious. I associate it with the late Margaret Thatcher. Countries, as far as I am concerned are abstracts, count as things, and are 'it'.
Something I've never been able to find an answer to is whether the personification of Wisdom in the Old Testament as 'she' is peculiar to English translations or whether it goes back further than that. English is unusual in the degree to which ontological and grammatical gender are almost totally regular and aligned. Hebrew, like French, has only two genders. So not just people, who do have genders, but all things and abstract words are grammatically masculine or feminine. 'Table' in French is 'la table' but that neither personifies it nor makes it a woman. It is still wooden. Greek, Latin, German etc have three grammatical genders, but in all three languages, grammatical and ontological gender are not particularly closely aligned. So, it is not significant that the Hebrew word most often translated into English is feminine. Nor is it automatically significant that the words in the Septuagint that most often translate the Hebrew word for wisdom are also feminine.
Wisdom in the Old Testament clearly in several contexts becomes personified and is expressed as being personified. It requires knowledge I have not got, and I do not think have access to, to know whether 'wisdom's' biblical personification only became feminine when it was translated into English, and so is peculiar to the Anglophone world, or whether this goes back much further and is universal.
@Enoch, it’s my understanding that OT personification of Wisdom as a woman is indeed original to the Hebrew, and not just because of grammatical gender.
I have a major problem with the use of the third person plural pronoun in referring to God. To me, that implies the Trinity has three separate gods. But then, I also have a problem referring to a transgender or nonbinary person in the third person plural pronoun too. I admit it. I am old. Some things are deeply ingrained. Still, when it comes to God, I just prefer using the proper title for God as much as I can.
I see God as Cheesecake. Three separate parts but one cake. Each layer has a name but the whole thing is a cheesecake. Now of course all comparisons fall apart and I would think some people will find it a bit disrespectful but it helps me
I have a major problem with the use of the third person plural pronoun in referring to God. To me, that implies the Trinity has three separate gods. But then, I also have a problem referring to a transgender or nonbinary person in the third person plural pronoun too. I admit it. I am old. Some things are deeply ingrained. Still, when it comes to God, I just prefer using the proper title for God as much as I can.
I see God as Cheesecake. Three separate parts but one cake. Each layer has a name but the whole thing is a cheesecake. Now of course all comparisons fall apart and I would think some people will find it a bit disrespectful but it helps me
The problem is that any analogy that tried to understand the trinity is wrong. Because the trinity is an inherent paradox. Analogies can help to understand it from one perspective, but not totally.
Also, the only proper designation of the divine in all aspects,is "Yahweh" surely, "I am". But, of course, that was simply a way of expressing that existence was the only relevant attribute of divinity. Not gender, not age, not number.
I should also point out that the masculine designation of Yahweh is mainly die to the patriarchal bias of both the original language and English. The normal way of writing in both - at least at the time the first versions were being written in these languages - made the male the default. I am not sure (although I doubt) if the Hebrew at the time of writing Genesis had a gender neutral way of writing.
But this means that the male designation is linguistic, not theological.
I have a major problem with the use of the third person plural pronoun in referring to God. To me, that implies the Trinity has three separate gods. But then, I also have a problem referring to a transgender or nonbinary person in the third person plural pronoun too. I admit it. I am old. Some things are deeply ingrained. Still, when it comes to God, I just prefer using the proper title for God as much as I can.
I see God as Cheesecake. Three separate parts but one cake. Each layer has a name but the whole thing is a cheesecake. Now of course all comparisons fall apart and I would think some people will find it a bit disrespectful but it helps me
Love the Bad Analogies. Love the incomprehensible "correct" explanation.
It's a real shame the creator is such a galloping arsehole.
Yes, I like some of his videos (the Christmas/Easter ones in particular, with the German-accented pagan gods), but then he can be just awful in some others.
The problem is that any analogy that tried to understand the trinity is wrong. Because the trinity is an inherent paradox. Analogies can help to understand it from one perspective, but not totally.
Also, the only proper designation of the divine in all aspects,is "Yahweh" surely, "I am". But, of course, that was simply a way of expressing that existence was the only relevant attribute of divinity. Not gender, not age, not number.
I'd say that He is the only self-existent Being that, well, Is. Everything else is created by Him.
I should also point out that the masculine designation of Yahweh is mainly die to the patriarchal bias of both the original language and English. The normal way of writing in both - at least at the time the first versions were being written in these languages - made the male the default. I am not sure (although I doubt) if the Hebrew at the time of writing Genesis had a gender neutral way of writing.
But this means that the male designation is linguistic, not theological.
As I've suggested elsewhere I don't agree--I think God has given us those images and words to use for at very least symbolic reasons that go beyond linguistics, and have to do with transcendent Masculine and Feminine (in which I also believe) but I think I am obviously in a tiny minority on all of that in this discussion. (Which is why I haven't really said much here.)
Comments
In relation to your question about to whether linguistic relativity is affected by the extent to which people think in words, I remember thinking that programming is a highly conceptual, non-linguistic activity - it starts with a very blank canvas (actually, it starts the level before the canvas, where you get to choose if a flat two-dimensional canvas is what you want). But it occurs to me that it's presumably possible for programmers to "think" in the code (syntax and grammar) of a particular language.
In contrast, and less technically, I also liked what Steven Pinker, who's a universalist (but not in that sense!), had to say:
This suggests to me the point already made by several people on this thread, that these images are more illustrative of parenthood, and that any notions of masculinity and femininity that we see are more to do with the projection of prevailing socio-cultural ideas about gender.
I'm not sure. Not at a conscious level, certainly, but while normally I can't think without words being involved there are times when I know there's a word for what I want to say but it eludes me for the moment - so there must be some mental process I'm thinking that concept in, which Pinker calls Mentalese. Pinker's argument, as I understand it, is that our thoughts are originated in this Mentalise and put into language to communicate or consciously consider them - once we actually acquire language. Prior to acquisition we are of course limited to this Mentalese.
1. Assuming there was nothing else they could write, and so interpreting writing irrespective of the original context.
2. Claiming that there is nothing indicating the feminine because of the context in which they were all writing - which was highly patriarchal.
Jael is a great example. As is Deborah. Both strong women, both taking action as needed. Maybe not specifically as images of God, but as indicators that women have an important place. Deborah within the patriarchy, Jael using he feminine wiles to create an opportunity.
Oh, and Deborah again for making a big song and dance about it.
As well as the ever-annoying search for elusive words, I'm often frustrated by the constraint of spoken (and thus written) language having sequential form - being one dimensional - where the only option is to put one word after another. It seems to me that what I'm thinking sometimes involves a more interconnected relationship between concepts than I'm able to express linguistically. (And there's only so much you can do with brackets.) I think this bears some resemblance to the concept of cognitive maps, although research tends to focus on their relevance to navigation (including in other species).
Temple Grandin has an excellent book called Visual Thinking which explores the issues around how people think with and without language--there's a sizable number of us who think in pictures, not words (I'm one, which is odd in a writer). Though even I find that I'm limited in WHAT I can think about without using words--I can handle the concrete, but trying to do philosophy or any but the most basic theology defeats me. I think it's the knowledge that the concrete images aren't doing the concepts justice.
As @Lamb Chopped well says, how we best relate to God is very personal. I myself don't understand what binary gender is and why y'all want it.* So I find it very weird that people often want to give God first person of the Trinity (GfpT), binary pronouns. After all, GfpT does not have a body or any other reason for me to assume they have gender. That said, I am aware that it is a normal and healthy way to relate to GfpT. I presume GfpT is fine with it. However, to me it's utterly obvious that GfpT would use they/them pronouns. It's not traditional but it's what personally works for me. For that reason, I find it disturbing when people avoid maternal images of GfpT. Those are just as natural, but I have known some guys who found them threatening. (Their word was "weird.")
*Though I completely respect everyone's right to have a binary gender of course.
Yes I know. I was just giving a reason for the use of father where it is used. Nothing else. The use of they indicated that. The text is the text.
I mostly think verbally but I find most deep philosophical discussion totally incomprehensible. I'd give my right arm to understand what Pease and AFF were going on about the other day.
That is probably not the reason. It might be because it is pretty inpenetrable.
Interestingly, I am definitely a visual thinker, but enjoy the abtruse depths of philosophy. Maybe - and this is very possible - because I like to turn these concepts into visual ideas, so I make the concepts practical and visual.
Or maybe I am just mad, which is also very possible.
Those who follows the tradition of using father in the text.
Gender is not the only characteristic that God does not possess by virtue of being incorporeal - limitedness is another, in the sense of not having a finite boundary between Them and Their surroundings, or in the sense of not having surroundings.
Another reason for not using corporeal pronouns is how they reflect God's nature as God - God is not just "not like us" in terms of incorporeality or limitedness, They are also not like us qualitatively - They are divine, sacred, beyond our understanding.
A third reason relates to the more grammatical or semantic issue of what pronouns indicate (or signify). In the case of possessive pronouns, God's (incorporeal) relationship to the thing "possessed" is in a different category from ours. The statement "this is God's house" suggests a very different kind of relationship from a human being asserting "this is my house". Using the same pronoun to describe both these relationships, as in "this is their house", blurs the distinction. In contrast, using "this is Their house" to describe God's relationship preserves a distinction about God's being, nature, qualities and characteristics.
Yes, @Gwai, it can be boring or stilted to avoid pronouns*. Languages have them for a good reason. But as one who has opportunities to write liturgy from time to time, I find it a good exercise to try to spend some time looking for ways to avoid pronouns while still retaining a sense of poetry. It takes practice and a bit of creativity.
* I think we’re mainly talking about third-person pronouns. “You” doesn’t present gender issues. Some contemporary liturgical texts, such as psalms, deal with the issue by switching from third- to second-person, but that doesn’t always work.
“Seek God while thel can be found, Call to thoi while thel are near.”
Using regular they/them pronouns:
“Seek God while they can be found, Call to them while they are near.”
Indeed - it's not very engaging:
“Seek God while God can be found, Call to God while God is near.”
Revised Jewish Publication Society (2023), a gender-sensitive translation:
“Seek GOD while you can, Call out while [God] is near.”
Jewish Publication Society (1985), the previous version:
“Seek the LORD while He can be found, Call to Him while He is near.”
I wouldn't say capitals are completely irrelevant - speech allows for a wide range of nuanced emphases that can be suggested by a variety of means in written language.
I see God as Cheesecake. Three separate parts but one cake. Each layer has a name but the whole thing is a cheesecake. Now of course all comparisons fall apart and I would think some people will find it a bit disrespectful but it helps me
Come on now, Patrick. That's partialism.
[I imagine most folk know the reference, but for the uninitiated:
https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw?si=GSuwzyj_aa1cebWs ]
Was it? Not by me, it isn't. My apologies but it's a usage I've always found unbearably pretentious. I associate it with the late Margaret Thatcher. Countries, as far as I am concerned are abstracts, count as things, and are 'it'.
Something I've never been able to find an answer to is whether the personification of Wisdom in the Old Testament as 'she' is peculiar to English translations or whether it goes back further than that. English is unusual in the degree to which ontological and grammatical gender are almost totally regular and aligned. Hebrew, like French, has only two genders. So not just people, who do have genders, but all things and abstract words are grammatically masculine or feminine. 'Table' in French is 'la table' but that neither personifies it nor makes it a woman. It is still wooden. Greek, Latin, German etc have three grammatical genders, but in all three languages, grammatical and ontological gender are not particularly closely aligned. So, it is not significant that the Hebrew word most often translated into English is feminine. Nor is it automatically significant that the words in the Septuagint that most often translate the Hebrew word for wisdom are also feminine.
Wisdom in the Old Testament clearly in several contexts becomes personified and is expressed as being personified. It requires knowledge I have not got, and I do not think have access to, to know whether 'wisdom's' biblical personification only became feminine when it was translated into English, and so is peculiar to the Anglophone world, or whether this goes back much further and is universal.
Love the Bad Analogies. Love the incomprehensible "correct" explanation.
It's a real shame the creator is such a galloping arsehole.
Also, the only proper designation of the divine in all aspects,is "Yahweh" surely, "I am". But, of course, that was simply a way of expressing that existence was the only relevant attribute of divinity. Not gender, not age, not number.
I should also point out that the masculine designation of Yahweh is mainly die to the patriarchal bias of both the original language and English. The normal way of writing in both - at least at the time the first versions were being written in these languages - made the male the default. I am not sure (although I doubt) if the Hebrew at the time of writing Genesis had a gender neutral way of writing.
But this means that the male designation is linguistic, not theological.
I agree.
Yes, I like some of his videos (the Christmas/Easter ones in particular, with the German-accented pagan gods), but then he can be just awful in some others.
I'd say that He is the only self-existent Being that, well, Is. Everything else is created by Him.
As I've suggested elsewhere I don't agree--I think God has given us those images and words to use for at very least symbolic reasons that go beyond linguistics, and have to do with transcendent Masculine and Feminine (in which I also believe) but I think I am obviously in a tiny minority on all of that in this discussion. (Which is why I haven't really said much here.)