I did not think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PMLondonderry
but if that is something you thought about then it is perfect.:)
Printable View
I did not think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PMLondonderry
but if that is something you thought about then it is perfect.:)
@PMLondonderry: I was citing a christian example because it's a religion with a logic behind the male attribute of God, Jesus who is in turn God, would be male and not ambiguously female.
Also, the notion of positivity and negativity are faulty linguistic constructs at best. Considering the notion of right, let's say that taking an step foward is the right thing. No verb is truly opposite to stepping foward, since steping back only changes directions and not moving at all is an absence not just of stepping foward but of many other gestures. Hence, if we consider something positive, we just need to admit the idea of "something else" to imagine something negative, but that's a false opposition, because in every possible action out there, the notion of negativity would be different. Just having a "right" doesn't make it so there is a "wrong".
I never used the words "right" nor "wrong" in the arguement about God being both negative and positive becuase I dont believe "positive" and "negative" to mean "right" and "wrong". If you translate those words to mean "right" and "wrong" then my post is entirely changed into something that I wasn't saying. I will explain it more when I have a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
As for Jesus, I see where I misunderstood you. Thanks for the clear up.
I understand that the words I used seem a bit different, but the way in which negative and positive are implied in your post don't seem to undermine my observation one bit, because we're still opposing positive and negative.
Negativity and positivity are not synonymous to right and wrong. "right" can be both negative and positive. An example would be hunting or the classic "lying to hide a Jew from the Nazis" scenerio. A lion needs to hunt in order to eat. That is a "good" or a "right" coming out of a negative (killing). A person who lies to nazis to keep a Jew safe is doing a negative (lying) to produce a "right" (saving a life). I never used "right" or "wrong" deliberately when arguing that God is both negative and positive because I believe those words are not related automatically. They are only related when someone suggests that they are. I did not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
I am not really religious, but negative theology (the point that divine concepts cannot be described in any other ways except saying what they are not) has always been to my liking. And I think that there are not many who surpass some of the buddhists in negative theology:
If I were religious, I'd probably would reason similarly about questions regarding the gender of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagarjuna
Quote:
Originally Posted by PMLondonderry
But you say that killing is negative, how and why? The opposition of positive and negative still exists, you're just displaying the difference at a different level, as far as I saw in your argument.
@Taliesin: I knew a Talie once in another forum, he wrote stuff too. It might be you Moth Tamer?
God talks about the impossibility of having a gender in my novel The Valley of Fire - laughs about it. God says the reason humans think they're made in God's image is because it keeps them at the center of the universe. Then God downs a beer and burps.
Learn Turkish, move to Turkey, and you won't have to worry about it.
Killing would be a "negative" act but could be used to achieve a positive ending. Much like the example I used with the prey and predator. The prey lost their life (negative), but the predator was sustained (positive.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrowni
And why would that be? The majority of Turks are Muslims. While Turkey is quite liberal, the inhabitants still hold to a particular view of God. I don't see how Turkey would be any different than the United States or Great Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patito de Hule
Unless you were telling a joke. In which case, I don't get it.
Most of us are bound to a language (English) that has biological gender = grammatical gender. It affects the way we think in that when we refer to God, we use the pronoun "he" which we strongly associate with the male gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by PMLondonderry
Other Indo-European languages and the Semitic languages also have grammatical gender. In Arabic, for example, which has a masculine and a feminine gender, God (allah) is masculine and requires masculine verbs, adjectives, and pronouns. An Arab referring to God with a pronoun must use huwa (he). God is masculine, but the association of God with male is weaker. God is not a biological object. Spanish is like Arabic (masculine, feminine, but no neuter) but uses gender specific articles and gender-free verbs. In Spanish, the association of God with male exists, but for a different reason--the metaphorical usages involve masculinity. The association is stronger than Arabic, but less than English.
In Uralic and Altaic languages like Turkish, there is no grammatical gender at all. Turks who speak only Turkish have a hard time understanding why on earth we think of God (or Allah) as male.
This is a literature forum, however. The reason all this would be of interest to a teacher or student of literature, or to a writer, is that there are subtle differences in the way people think and talk. If I were writing a novel about the Ottoman Empire I would want to be very careful to avoid subtlties that suggest my Turkish characters think of God as eitherr masculine or male. I might even want to include an incident of misunderstanding between a European and a Turk involving such a difference. This is part of making characters real.
Some applications:
When I read Chinhua Achebe's novel Things Fall Apart, one of the special pleasures was that the protagonist Okonkwo repeatedly did and said things that reminded me of a friend I had in Lagos, Nigeria, when I lived there.
It was one of the most enjoyable, novel experiences I've had reading. Cultural aspects of Ben Okri's novel The Famished Road similarly affected me. Likewise for Debo Kotun's Abiku.
When I read Bapsi Sidhwa's Crow Eaters I noticed some repetitions that I thought must have been word play and foreshadowing. I asked an Indian and he enhanced considerably my understanding of that book as well as of Cracking India or Candyman. Again for Dostoevsky's and Tolstoy's works, discussing them with a Russian friend made them even better.
We join forums like this hoping to learn from others things that we missed, perhaps because of cultural (or sub-cultural) differences. How can you ever write a short story or novel without discussion and criticism from others for the same reason.
^ I see what you are saying now entirely. Very good argument. I actually just had this discussion with someone last week about why God is referred to as "he" in the Qur'an, Hebrew Bible, and Gospel. It is entirely to do with the fact that Hebrew and Arabic do not have a gender neutral term like "it". In Arabic, the masculine version of a noun is common whereas the feminine is the exception. Therefore, it was only natural that God ("lah") would be referred to as "he" as it is the norm with most Arabic vocabulary.
I presented the experiment that I feel is very relevant and that most followers of Abrahamic religions, myself included, sometimes forget. Since it is socially acceptable to refer to God as "he," even though he technically has no gender at all, I wonder how the majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims would feel if we told them/us to start using "she." At least for myself, it would feel unnatural because I have been linguistically and culturally conditioned to refer to God as a male. Through that conditioning, I have also naturally applied masculine traits to God, completely ignoring the fact that he would also have just as many feminine traits. In fact, he would embody all that is both masculine and feminine as he is the creator of both.
If people were to start calling God "she," how do you think our persceptions of God would change? How would "her" attributes change? Would we feel like we were suddenly overstepping our boundaries as an Abrahamic family and going into a pagan way of thinking since we would essentially be calling God a Goddess? And, would that be so bad? Would that be "against the rules" Abrahamically speaking? I don't think it would. Just as calling God "God" and "he" is natural for us but not necessarily correct, changing to "she" and "Goddess" would be just as acceptable.
However, to argue against my own argument (I love playing Devils Advocate with myself), a Muslim is required to believe in the purity of the Qur'an, as opposed to Jews and Christians, who are not religiously required to believe in the untainted purity of the Hebrew Bible and Gospel, but are allowed to have a more "this is a collection of works recorded by holy people" sort of approach to their holy texts. If Muslims believe in the untainted purity of the Qur'an, would God calling himself a male then need to be literally accepted by Muslims or is God himself bound by the literary rules that we humans have created? Would God, in order to make his word accessible to us, need to follow these linguistic rules and can they then be argued and interpreted as "God has no real gender?"
Thoughts?
However, in the Greek there is a gender neutral article. Have you considered the Septuagint translation? Nonetheless, once you get to the New Testament writings, there are some very strong reasoning for a masculine reference to God. Again, if you are referring to any other god than the God of Christianity (Jehovah, Christ and the Spirit), then the argument doesn't apply, but in the discussion of Christianity, there is specific discussion of the reasoning found in Ephesians, and the numerous references of the Father and the Son.
And there are some Christian that do believe in the inerrant Bible.
I didn't consider the Septuagint since that text was translated from the Hebrew which does not have gender neutral. Since the original text used the masculine form, it would only make sense that it would be translated over into the Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Some thoughts:
1) Perhaps God is simply seen as a male through Jesus because he chose to come to earth as a male (this would be me taking the side of a Christian and arguing using Christian theology. As I am not a Christian, I don't believe he did come through Jesus but I am arguing as a Christian for the sake of presenting an idea.) He could have easily chosen to come to earth through a woman. He couldn't have come as both (unless he wanted to come as a hermaphrodite of course). Do you think the fact that he chose to come as a male is the only reason why we would associate God himself as being fully male? And do you think he chose a male because of social/political reasons? Being a male gave Jesus a lot more social mobility and freedom that being a woman would not have given him. God knows human culture and would have planned accordingly.
2) You mentioned that we start seeing some gender characteristics about God especially in the New Testament. Do you think this could be influenced by the writings in the original Hebrew Bible, characterizing God as male? Since Christianity was influenced by Judaism and Islam was influenced by both, do you think we picture God as being male because our Abrahamic predecessors did?
Of course. I simply mean that it is not religiously required to believe so. In Islam, it's written in the Qur'an that the Qur'an is untainted and perfect. To believe it isn't is blasphemous to a Muslim (even though it's teachings may be interpreted differently among individuals.) The text and words themselves, in the original Arabic only, is believed to be literally the words spoken FROM God himself to Angel Gabriel and then from him through Prophet Muhammad. It isn't the same for Christians and Christians have the freedom to choose whether they believe the Bible is the perfect word of God, or whether they believe it to be a collection of works put together by others. The same goes for the Hebrew Bible.Quote:
And there are some Christian that do believe in the inerrant Bible.