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