Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!akgua!whuxle!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.women
Subject: Deific gender question
Message-ID: <957@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Aug-84 16:25:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.957
Posted: Fri Aug  3 16:25:41 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Aug-84 07:46:23 EDT
References: <254@siemens.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 19

> >	Take your god and ram it. [Rich Kulaweic]
> That should read:
> Take your God and ram Him.
>		[siemens!wws]

Ignoring for the moment the tone of the original statement, the need to
capitalize the 'G' (and the 'H')...

Why 'it' to 'him'?  In referring to even speculative notions about deities,
I almost always use the neuter form 'it'.  Is there anyone out there who
thinks it's appropriate to refer to a deity as male, simply because ancient
scribes transcribed references to god in the masculine?  Because in those
days it was assumed that anyone (anything?) with "power" was (by definition)
male?  Setting aside "it says so in X", if you think god is male, why do you
think this?  I honestly can't see any reason to believe that a universally
powerful entity would have to accommodate human notions of gender.  It seems
like a view that's both anthropocentric and androcentric.  Comments?
-- 
If it doesn't change your life, it's not worth doing.     Rich Rosen  pyuxn!rlr