Active Now

my2cents
Danilo_G
Element 99
Discussion » Questions » Religion and Spirituality » The Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God is the product of a paternalistic culture that looked down upon and devalued women.

The Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian God is the product of a paternalistic culture that looked down upon and devalued women.

Knowing this, why do the supposedly enlightened and "woke" people on this site continue to refer to God as he, him, and father? Would it not be more broad-minded and less potentially offensive to simply use the species- and gender-neutral "God," as we do in egalitarian conservative Judaism?

Posted - October 27, 2019

Responses


  • 14795
    I much perefer to call "it" a myth , it's funny how no ones ever seen "it" either and it's all still one big myth'tory to me....why do minows believe in things that  cannot ever be proven ? 
      October 27, 2019 5:50 PM MDT
    3

  • 5391

    It could be (though I don’t pretend to speak for believers) that this is what the teachings of these faiths insist upon. 

    The major monotheisms were all pieced together, codified and spread by men, invariably centered around male figures, amid male dominated societies; all of which unfailingly subjugated women and girls by law and tradition. 

      October 27, 2019 6:07 PM MDT
    4

  • 10037
    Stu said "woke". 

    LMAO! 
      October 27, 2019 6:35 PM MDT
    2

  • 13251
    You can take that literally at the moment since I just finished a lovely nap!
      October 27, 2019 6:53 PM MDT
    3

  • 10037
    Hey, I had a lovely one today, too! I LOVE NAPS!

    The whole "woke" expression really cracks me up for some reason. 
      October 27, 2019 7:03 PM MDT
    2

  • 13251
    I agree. My inner grammar cop wants to correct it to "awakened" or "awoken."
      October 27, 2019 7:17 PM MDT
    4

  • From what I've seen, women have fared better in the Judeo-Christian tradition than they have in the Islamic traditions and value system. Add to that mix,the contributions of secular humanists, agnostics, atheists, et al, in the abusing, devaluing  or mistreatment of women. Nothing to write home about there either when it comes to uplifting the condition of women. Regardless, I'm not changing the gender of the Almighty in speech, or written references to make anybody happy.  
      October 27, 2019 6:56 PM MDT
    3

  • 13251
    But how do you know that God exists in human form and even has a gender? And a comparison to Islamic tradition doesn't say a whole helluva lot. This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at October 27, 2019 7:17 PM MDT
      October 27, 2019 7:14 PM MDT
    1

  • 6098
    Yes, very true. 
      October 27, 2019 7:21 PM MDT
    1

  • 5391

    Except that secular beliefs, to include humanism, agnosticism and atheism were also summarily oppressed, and routinely persecuted through the centuries by the various ‘Parties of God’. This was by design and asserted by doctrine. Still is. 

    The other fallacy of your response, HG, is that there are no common doctrines among non-believers to assert similar institutional repression against any demographic; so the comparison is a poor one. 
    The attempt at deflection is a knee jerk defense of the indefensible. 

    This post was edited by Don Barzini at November 5, 2019 3:06 PM MST
      October 27, 2019 7:44 PM MDT
    1

  • 4631
    I agree.

    In Islam, God is actually considered as neither male nor female, but simultaneously both.
    In Jewish Kabala, the diagram shows the aspects of God in the sephirot as having a male and a female side, also a combination of male and female energies or attributes, and aspects which transcend gender.

    But the languages only permit references to he or she. There is no personal pronoun which embraces both male and female for a person.
    The neutral pronoun it is considered too impersonal for an entity which is considered to have consciousness, will and a personality.

    Many languages resort to using the male pronoun when intending to include the female - and it does result over the centuries in coming to think that the subject is in fact male. It's exactly how many women ended up feeling left out. And when the history is explored, the instances in which this becomes intentional on the part of patriarchy gradually intensify as the centuries pass.  This post was edited by inky at October 28, 2019 1:58 PM MDT
      October 27, 2019 7:14 PM MDT
    3

  • 13251
    A bit long, but quite thoughtful and insightful. Thanks!
      October 27, 2019 7:21 PM MDT
    2

  • 4631
    Thanks for the pick. :)

    I've accepted your point about too long and deleted the last paragraph.
      October 28, 2019 1:50 AM MDT
    1

  • 5391

    It is interesting, is it not, how female characters are so prominently denigrated in scripture. Eve was fooled by a talking snake (also portrayed in feminine form by religious art) to defy God, bringing mortality into the world; Lot’s wife turned to salt for looking back at God’s wrath; the objectification in religious law, and subjugation (even at worship) in all 3 faiths. 

    Even consider the passage recited by traditional Jewish men at the beginning of daily morning prayer, “Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman”. 

      October 27, 2019 8:38 PM MDT
    1

  • 6098
    Object lessons.  Nobody obliged those who took down the writings in The Bible to make sure they made everything externally "equal" and wrote exactly the same number of bad and good things about each sex!
      October 27, 2019 8:43 PM MDT
    1

  • 5391

    Quite the opposite. The cultures from which the Bible stories (and the Quran, the Talmud) arose made it imperative to enforce the status of male domination so pervasive in all of them. 

    That is in fact the point of the Q. I suggest you read on to Bookworm’s post as well. 

      October 28, 2019 4:29 AM MDT
    1

  • 6098
    So if Eve or Lot's wife or Jezebel sinned how is that supposed to ruin my life? 
      October 27, 2019 8:51 PM MDT
    1

  • 5391

    A point to be raised about Eve, and I know this is far beyond your thinking but, if, as paleontology shows, the “story” of Eve is indeed a myth, then there is no original sin; hence no need for redemption from original sin; there is then no premise to be “born again”, and THE foundational basis of Christianity falls to pieces. 

    It would also follow that death isn’t a punishment rendered upon us by a God for the naïve disobedience of one woman, but a biological fact of our being an organic life form with a finite lifespan, just like every other living organism. 

    Ask yourself how would that ruin at least your perception of life....

    This post was edited by Don Barzini at October 28, 2019 3:00 PM MDT
      October 28, 2019 4:38 AM MDT
    1

  • 19942
    I'll be interested to see the reply to this.
      October 28, 2019 7:51 AM MDT
    1

  • 5391

    There won’t be one.

    Only a paltry few on this site have shown the capacity to attend this level of discourse. She isn’t among them. 

      October 30, 2019 8:35 PM MDT
    1

  • 4631
    Eve is certainly the model upon which the inferiority and evil of women is asserted in Semitic faiths. She is characterised as less than Adam because she was made to be his help-mate, never created to be equal. Mohammed uses this origin and her vulnerability to Satan's persuasion to assert that a woman's testimony is worth half the value of a man's in Sharia law. 

    The "good" females of the Old Testament are the ones who conform to the feminine roles prescribed for them, but in addition, they are remembered for breeding particular sons, or for acts of heroic self-sacrifice.

    The only exception is Deborah as related in the Book of Judges (Hebrew: דְּבוֹרָה, Dəḇōrāh, "bee"), a prophetess of the God of the Israelites, the fourth Judge of pre-monarchic Israel and the only female judge mentioned in the Bible.

    The "bad" females are those who in some way disobey God or fail to conform to the feminine ideal, characters like Lot's wife or Delilah.
      October 28, 2019 1:44 AM MDT
    2

  • 6098
    No, companionate marriage stems from reformed Christianity.  Which is nothing but a more literal belief in The Bible.  I don't believe conservative Judaism recognizes the Hew Testament as Scripture. 

    To answer your question please tell me when have I ever on this or other sites been guilty of that?  Not that it really matters because when we talk of God mere words will always be to some extent inadequate because God is beyond such shallow definitions and interpretations. 
      October 27, 2019 7:18 PM MDT
    2

  • 13251
    Guilty of what? Guilty is a rather strong word, but I'm talking about those who use male nouns and pronouns when referring to God. Have you done that? I haven't kept track. But, for example, instead of saying, "God loves all of HIS creatures," why not say, "God loves all of GOD'S creatures?" This is exactly what we do in egalitarian conservative Judaism. See? It's perfectly gender neutral and not hard to do. I don't see how recognizing or not recognizing the new testament as scripture is relevant here. And how is companionate marriage relevant? This post was edited by Stu Spelling Bee at October 28, 2019 7:52 AM MDT
      October 27, 2019 7:32 PM MDT
    3

  • 6098
    NT is especially important to reformed Christians because we regard it as the fulfillment of The Torah. 

    My point was that you are accusing all of us and don't seem to recognize that I have been doing exactly as you suggest for as long as I have been posting on the net. 
      October 27, 2019 7:48 PM MDT
    1