Lovely People aka 'the bunny comic'

[Speck]

Um, maybe I'm a little confused about what you're asking here, but using anything but the masculine when referring to God is not done in the original text as far as I know, at least when it's the Father or Jesus. The Holy Spirit on the other hand is sometimes referred to as female. (Not first-hand experience though, since I can't read ancient Hebrew or Greek.)

Pneuma in the greek is a feminine noun - but note that may not convey much (das Mädchen - the girl - is neuter in German).  However there is a lot of feminine imagery for the divine in both the Older and Newer testaments.  G_d is also plural, and without gender, and... there’s a lot more diversity than we often acknowledge.

And I’ve heard the same arguments as you, Miragia, against inclusivity. 

[moredhel]

- Changing how God is referred to creates a dangerous alternate image of God.

Are you sure about that? Does this not fit in the general tendency of growing abstraction of god? What I want to say, a long Time ago, people used Gods name what they don't do much now they say just god or our father. There are rules against making pictures of god. Most christians do not follow this rule and there are clever artguments for doing so but it is in the book and jews and muslims do so. Before was a rule against it the people would have made pictures of god. So over time no pictures no name, god became more and more abstract. So if the idea of god is male is given up it would fit in this tendency. So it would not create a new image but would make the image of god more abstract.

I have had a talk about this topic with someone (if relevant a muslim) who had a clever explanation for this tendency. He said humans are not able to completely understand god. So for a start people thought of god like a human nur much more powerful. But the millenia of study and clever people thinking about it and some hints by the prophets, led to a still incomplete, but better understanding of god. So we do no longer need a picture or a name.

[Tarnagh]

1. Um, maybe I'm a little confused about what you're asking here, but using anything but the masculine when referring to God is not done in the original text as far as I know
<snipped for brevity>
2. After all, if you take a text out of its context you're left with a con.

1. One of the first Names of God used in the Old Testament translates as "Elohim," and is the masculine plural form of the singular female "Eloha." It's been a VERY long time since I studied these things, but there's some evidence in the original texts to indicate that at some point prior to the time these things were written and codified the Hebrew deity was likely female. I know this is anecdotal and I'm not about to "Source: Dude, Trust Me" on this, so please do feel free to take that information with a grain of salt if you like. I do remember that being a thing though. Unfortunately, it's been more than 30 years since I had access to the original study books and can't for the life of me remember the names of them now.

2. I absolutely LOVE that! I've never heard that before but it's so incredibly true!

[Miragia]

Are you sure about that?

If you're asking me, that one's not an opinion of mine. I was just digging up arguments that were used by people in an old debate, as requested.

[Róisín]

Yes, the original words for the Paraclete/Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit were feminine, while the Son was male and the words for God were most often masculine in later versions, but in earlier versions might be masculine or neutral. Remember, the bible updates spanned a number of languages over centuries.

And the bible has been repeatedly not just translated but has had its contents revised/updated/ edited to fit with current politics a number of times. Consider the various committees that have worked on these changes. You might find the deliberations of the various Councils of Nicaea interesting. The Synod of Whitby was especially nasty, involving as it did a lot of financial and political skulduggery to ensure the outcomes. And the systematic destruction of the Celtic Christian church by a series of popes.

I don’t want to even start on such subjects as the French Crusade, in which another pope instigated a full-on military Crusade such as had been rolled out in the ‘Holy Land’, across France and adjoining territory against a marginally different flavour of Catholics. Or the pernicious doctrine of ‘Terra Nullius’. All of these acts and more were justified citing versions of the bible edited to justify such acts for advantage, land and profit. Look it up if you are curious, perhaps?

Anyway, I have to go and get some work done. I will look in later.

[tzelly]

Um, maybe I'm a little confused about what you're asking here, but using anything but the masculine when referring to God is not done in the original text as far as I know, at least when it's the Father or Jesus. The Holy Spirit on the other hand is sometimes referred to as female. (Not first-hand experience though, since I can't read ancient Hebrew or Greek.)

As for what reasons are given, well, I had to do some digging since that debate happened nearly a year ago, and I wasn't paying more than casual attention back then. The only one that stuck with me is the one I already gave in an earlier post:
- Since God chose to use the male pronouns about himself, why is that not good enough for the people advocating inclusivity?

That aside though, some other reasons I'm finding digging through this are...
- God does not need more names.
- God as a mother is incomprehensible, and being incomprehensible will turn away more people than it attracts.
- Trying to adapt God to suit individual tastes is the same as building a new Tower of Babel.
- Changing how God is referred to creates a dangerous alternate image of God.
- The people advocating this also advocate ideas that go against the core message of Christianity.
- The moralizing tone and tendencies of these people and how they attack everyone who does not agree with their opinions is a problem.
- Bonking each other in the head with human-created ideological slegdehammers distracts from the main message.

Oh, I can answer some of this from the perspective of a former Jew that used to know modern Hebrew.

This is all I know on the subject from how it was presented to me so I could be wrong on some details.

Spoiler: show

Yes, in the torah God was referred to as masculine, his name would be included but we were told to insert "he who is most holy" or Ellohim (not sure how to spell that). Cant say much to the feminine aspect to the holy ghost, for as far as I know it was supposed to be only one being. "I am God, there is no one but Me." kinda thing.

Also no, God has many names. 72 known names and the number is supposed to be in the hundreds or thousands.

In the traditional bible, it dosnt make sense for a male dominant religion, that treated its women like property to give their supreme being any female traits that to them are inferior. So yes, your right on that point.

People disagreeing on Gods traits and changing them to fit a narrative is why there are three main religions from one book and counless subsects of christianity. Christians changed his identity when forming the new testament and spliting his identity into 3 or 4 individuals. (No Satan in the original text, he would supposedly talk to himself for he is literally everything)

Thats at least off the top of my head,  let me know if I'm unclear on anything.

[wavewright62]

Not keeping up with the play very well in here, but trying. 



Thank you all for taking our continued conversation to heart. 

[Pessi]

Being Lutheran, I also knew people in the Finnish Lutheran diaspora in Canada - and this was a hot topic and a culture war issue.  There are a lot of varieties of Lutheran (indeed, of any denomination) and the conservatives hated that the more liberal folks actually cared about inclusivity.  If there are any Finnish Lutherans in Finland around, I’d be curious on their take! 

In Finnish language there are no separate pronouns for "she" and "he", we only have the neutral "hän" which is used for everyone. I've not heard of any new translation centering on inclusivity, but I know every new translation that gets made in collaboration with the Finnish Lutheran church aims at being both as correct and faithful to the original text and as easy to understand as possible. There will anyway probably always be great controversy when a so called holy text is altered. I remember being against our current version of the Bible myself when it was formalized in the 90's simply because I was so used to the "old world" vibes of the previous one with all it's squiggly, poetic 30's language. The new one with it's plain and everyday language felt like all magic had faded away.

Since I've long ago ceased to be an actual believer (though I still retain my membership in the congregation to be able to vote for the "Come All" movement in every Parish election) I've not followed this field much, but it seems we got a new translation of the New Testament just last autumn. The main difference of "UT2020" compared with the older translations is that it has been made exclusively for mobile platforms, the length of the sentences and the general structure of the language designed so that the text is easy to read from a small screen. It won't be circulated in printed form at all, and it also isn't meant to replace the 1992 translation but to act as it's companion.

[Umbral Reaver]

One of my most significant concerns is that with the derisive dig at gender inclusivity in the Bible in her comic, what she thinks of people in real life that do not abide by gender norms.

I personally have a traumatic history with the very same kind of Christianity espoused in this comic, particularly on the topic of gender.

[Miragia]

- Since God chose to use the male pronouns about himself, why is that not good enough for the people advocating inclusivity?
- God does not need more names.
- God as a mother is incomprehensible, and being incomprehensible will turn away more people than it attracts.
- Trying to adapt God to suit individual tastes is the same as building a new Tower of Babel.
- Changing how God is referred to creates a dangerous alternate image of God.
- The people advocating this also advocate ideas that go against the core message of Christianity.
- The moralizing tone and tendencies of these people and how they attack everyone who does not agree with their opinions is a problem.
- Bonking each other in the head with human-created ideological slegdehammers distracts from the main message.

...To be clear, here are my personal views on those reasons, since I'd rather not people assume I stand behind all of that.

- Jesus chose to use "Father". If the male pronouns are good enough for God, then it's good enough for me.
- That God does not need more names is kind of silly? Sure, he does not need them. Humans are the ones who do. So let humans use whichever name they feel is most respectful.
- No, it's not incomprehensible. Bad excuse.
- Adapting God to suit individual tastes... Well, I don't think that's a good thing in as far as it's the wishful thinking of humans, since it is incredibly easy to fool oneself in that way. But God doesn't teach everyone in the same way, so he's actually adapting himself to reach individuals, too. The goal remains the same though, and he has said that one day he will explain himself clearly, so I think it's best to retain some open-mindedness for that day.
- As many people have already pointed out, God already has thousands of names. Goes to show how difficult it is to describe him, but who was it that tasked humans to name things, again...?
- I am not for abandoning Jesus or the core message in any way or form regardless of what God is called.
- Any group that grows huge enough is bound to have some less civil people. That goes for Christians, atheists, feminists, sport fans, insert-other-group, and yes, it even applies to the groups that feel hurt by Christianity. Like many have already said, the tone maintained in this place is impressive. It would not be impressive if it was like this everywhere, though.
- Bonking each other on the head is a distracting thing, yes.

Putting the reasons I don't agree with myself up here may nonetheless have been a little unfair of me, since there may be no one here to defend or explain those views. Please keep that in mind.

Pneuma in the greek is a feminine noun - but note that may not convey much (das Mädchen - the girl - is neuter in German).  However there is a lot of feminine imagery for the divine in both the Older and Newer testaments.  G_d is also plural, and without gender, and... there’s a lot more diversity than we often acknowledge.

And I’ve heard the same arguments as you, Miragia, against inclusivity. 

1. One of the first Names of God used in the Old Testament translates as "Elohim," and is the masculine plural form of the singular female "Eloha." It's been a VERY long time since I studied these things, but there's some evidence in the original texts to indicate that at some point prior to the time these things were written and codified the Hebrew deity was likely female. I know this is anecdotal and I'm not about to "Source: Dude, Trust Me" on this, so please do feel free to take that information with a grain of salt if you like. I do remember that being a thing though. Unfortunately, it's been more than 30 years since I had access to the original study books and can't for the life of me remember the names of them now.

Oh, I can answer some of this from the perspective of a former Jew that used to know modern Hebrew.

This is all I know on the subject from how it was presented to me so I could be wrong on some details.

Spoiler: show

Yes, in the torah God was referred to as masculine, his name would be included but we were told to insert "he who is most holy" or Ellohim (not sure how to spell that). Cant say much to the feminine aspect to the holy ghost, for as far as I know it was supposed to be only one being. "I am God, there is no one but Me." kinda thing.

Also no, God has many names. 72 known names and the number is supposed to be in the hundreds or thousands.

In the traditional bible, it dosnt make sense for a male dominant religion, that treated its women like property to give their supreme being any female traits that to them are inferior. So yes, your right on that point.

People disagreeing on Gods traits and changing them to fit a narrative is why there are three main religions from one book and counless subsects of christianity. Christians changed his identity when forming the new testament and spliting his identity into 3 or 4 individuals. (No Satan in the original text, he would supposedly talk to himself for he is literally everything)

Thats at least off the top of my head,  let me know if I'm unclear on anything.

Thank you for your interesting knowledge and perspectives, Speck, Tarnagh and tzelly. ^^ I'm not going to speculate too much about things I have no education in, though personally I don't think God is either male or female. He's just playing by our rules and referring to himself as male since humans tend to think in those terms, and making clear to us whether he's male or female or both or neither really isn't a priority to him when we're living on borrowed time.

Spoiler: show

As for the trinity, I know that can be a difficult topic for non-Christians (and some Christians too) to wrap their heads around. I am quite certain that most who believe in the trinity do not believe that God are three different individuals, though. At least, as I see it, God is one being who shows himself in three different ways. What gender those forms of his happen to have does not change that God is still one.

[thorny]

1. One of the first Names of God used in the Old Testament translates as "Elohim," and is the masculine plural form of the singular female "Eloha." It's been a VERY long time since I studied these things, but there's some evidence in the original texts to indicate that at some point prior to the time these things were written and codified the Hebrew deity was likely female.

Or was both female and male, possibly in two persons; with Elohim being the plural used for both together.

There's also apparently an instance in which Moses addresses God using a female pronoun; and there may be other cases. I don't myself have any Hebrew, or Greek, or Aramaic, or anything else relevant; and can't really speak further to this.

And I really don't understand the Christian trinity. But if they're all actually one God and not three, then if one of them is considered female, wouldn't that have to mean that God is both male and female? Or, possibly, neither or something else altogether; but using human languages with dualistic pronouns because that's what was around at the time.

-- Miragia, for what it's worth, I took your answer to me as paraphrasing others' opinions (as I'd asked for), not as being your own opinions. And again, thanks for answering.

[Superdark33]

Alright, I think this is a good possibility to consider. As we know now, though, it's hard to speculate accurately on exactly what the author knew or did not know, what was an accident or what was deliberate in a story. It's good to hear about the possibility that maybe she does not hate inclusive language and that this might be an actual thing going on in Christian social spheres. In the context you mentioned, it seems Christians are considering it to help themselves through navigating faith, which is different from another group exerting pressure for change in a religion.

Im sorry but i cabt be this charitable.

It is an extremely common tactic for demonization of inclusion/progress to say "i dont refer to the actual inclusive language or people affected, im refering to the bad hypocrites who are bad and hypocrite", people who do exist in tiny quantities (and are even platformed and empowered by the same people who hate progress or inclusivity but thats another topic).

Then they proceed to paint literally ANYONE who speaks out with the brush of "bad hypocrite" no matter what, any singke attempt at inclusivity is being scrutinized as one of The Bad Ones and then whatever new name they invent for The Bad Ones this time stops being a veil to hide behind and starts being a slur to cudgel at people.

I dont give people who deny my humanity the benefit of the doubt.

[catbirds]

I dont give people who deny my humanity the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately that is also the conclusion I reached at the end of my post. There were way too many people who fit in the category you described defending her actions in her twitch chat last Saturday by saying people should not have been so "offended." And many of these people have been hanging around in the chat for years, from what I remember.

I did go back and check out what happened in the "Emil incident" and I found, to my dismay, quite a few people who defended the use of the slur. I guess others may have given her the benefit of the doubt way back when, but had I been around to see it unfold, the amount of red flags that I saw would have been enough to make me run for the hills. It felt like what you'd described was already under development by then, and the bunny comic felt like what you described in the second paragraph.

Spoiler: show

Boy, that bunny comic was really something I had to end up reading, wasn't it!

[Speck]

And I really don't understand the Christian trinity. But if they're all actually one God and not three, then if one of them is considered female, wouldn't that have to mean that God is both male and female? Or, possibly, neither or something else altogether; but using human languages with dualistic pronouns because that's what was around at the time.

Spoiler: show

theology stuff

Although the word for the spirit in Greek is grammatically female, there is no evidence this was interpreted as designating female gender to the spirit in early Christianities.  Grammatical gender can be arbitrary.  It is only in the last century (as far as I’m aware - and yes I’ve read a lot of medieval mystics) that this grammatical gender was then applied as ascribing female anthropomorphic gender.

Note that the Greek did not have capitalization - so our caps (and punctuation!) are products of later interpreters/translators. 

If you want to know more about the feminine divine in the Hebrew scriptures, I’d suggest Tikva Frymer-Kensky’s book In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth.  It’s for non-specialists but still has oodles of footnotes for those who appreciate them.

I do want to add - I’m a bit worried how all this will be read by those who have experienced toxic Christianity - do they really want to hear all this talk about a religion that has done them harm? 

I have a graduate degree in religion and still occasionally teach in that area at a university, I have served as a Lutheran pastor and have deep connections to a whole dog’s breakfast of Christian denominations, my dad has a doctorate in the New Testament and I grew up debating him on theology and Greek and reading the Society of Biblical Literature journals - as well as daily devotions- I’ve been immersed in the scholarly community for years, so I could go on and on about this stuff (yes re: elohim and the plural! the pantheon of divine figures in various books!  the blurring of human/divine divide!).   

BUT I also have a sister who is First Nations and I know the wretched racism and genocide Indigenous persons experienced at the hands of Christianity, I have a brother who is gay who has been deeply harmed by the horrible messages he’s received, I’ve seen friends become more toxic Christians - and others who’ve left altogether because of this - smart decision!  I watch as pretty well all religions have floundered to pivot to address the ecological crisis (thankfully pagans have still been willing to share their wisdom). 

So all of this is decidedly ambiguous and I guess I just worry about those for whom this isn’t interesting or curious but a reminder of nasty and cruel experiences.  Hence my hiding this in a spoiler. 

[thorny]

[spoiler]theology stuff

In response to concern about whether people who've had to deal with toxic versions might not want a Christian theology debate here: Yes -- maybe this is also a bit of a hijack, as the discussion's in danger of moving away from perspectives on what Minna may have meant. So although I've been contributing to it I'll try to stop doing that here.