Talk:Gender of God/Archive 1

Inclusive Bible

The Inclusive Bible does exist, see here: http://www.amazon.com/Inclusive-Bible-First-Egalitarian-Translation/dp/1580512143 Curufinwe (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it is such a surprising and unprecedented interpretation of the text that I simply thought it was a prank. Not so I now see. Indeed, since October last year, a web-designer (Craig R. Smith) has offered a version of the Bible and a funky, small Australian Catholic publisher (Sheed & Ward Books) have it in print for us. Good on all of them.

It is, however, certainly WP:UNDUE. The subtitle of the book inadvertantly excludes itself because, as I'd endorse, it is the first with this pronoun for this passage. However, it is far from the first "inclusive" translation. The New Internation Version and others have editions with inclusive in the title. Additionally, many translations note in prefaces that their approach to translation includes various types of policy which they call inclusive.

I suppose the argument would be that this is the first truly inclusive version. If the John example is anything to go by, it may very well be so, since it is willing to not only ignore gender marking in the original, but actually construe this in an exclusive way and contrary to the text. I can't see how she for Holy Spirit is in any way inclusive of men and masculinity. What a wonderful bundle of contradictions.

Whatever this edition may prove to be, it is certainly not yet representative of anything much more than a cool web-designer, who is anything but orthodox in his connections with Christianity (see [Author's website], and an open-minded publisher willing to connect him to people who would like to support his work. It does not merit space in an article devoted to outlining the diversity between major religious traditions, rather than comprehensively treating marginal positions at the fringes of these traditions.

It's a lot of fun, but it's not a serious contribution to this article I'm afraid. But don't take my word for it. If you want to appeal my deletion of it, the obvious place to go would be Wikiproject:Christianity to get a Christian consensus on how representative this edition of the Bible actually is of the "Gender of God in Christianity", for that is the topic here of course.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sounds perfectly reasonable. I'd say inclusive language (including feminine imagery) is more common than you might think, I know today in church we sang a song from our hymnal that uses she for the Spirit (She Flies On) and we're the largest protestant church in Canada, so I'm not in complete agreement that its as marginal an opinion as you might believe, but yes, I do agree with most of what you say, and totally understand the belief that it might be a prank. Cool. Curufinwe (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I simply follow the majority on this matter, understanding the Spirit to be unambiguously masculine. Overshadowing Mary and bring her to conception has been argued to be pretty robustly masculine. However, the hymn does resonate with a documented minority view offered at various times by lateral thinking "sound" Christian writers, a good deal more "dubious" ones, and a very large number of "heretical" ones. Perhaps at times, a feminine conception of the Spirit was a majority view in the Syrian Orthodox church. It was very probably the majority view in Gnosticism, arguably the first Christian heresy.

Although these views constitute only a very small minority in Christian writing, belief in a feminine Spirit never seems to have been isolated in itself as being heretical. Hence, the article includes this overall idea as a variation within Christianity significant to the topic at hand.

My concern is only regarding Craig Smith's version of John, which is probably the first to use a feminine pronoun for the Spirit. Good for him. But at Wiki, when the best selling book of all time has masculine pronouns for the Spirit (in all languages where this is possible or necessary) has been released in a new version for only a few months, and differs in a theologically significant way, this hardly (yet) constitutes grounds for giving readers the impression it is an alternative widely available to Christians.

It's not for Wiki to patrol the boundaries of orthodoxy. However it is its place to establish the boundaries of credibility. Smith, at this stage, doesn't reflect a clear professional assessment of the Greek of John. Among other things, the title of his version gives him scope to alter pronouns at will.

Thanks for the source and the reply. God bless you and your church. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly following the majority, and there are many ways to interpret the passages regarding Mary and the Holy Spirit. A very large number of heretical ones? Dubious ones? Which groups? Yes, many heretical groups have used feminine language for the HS, but that doesn't prove anything. Catholics and most Protestants could use similar arguments to dismiss Baptists (i.e., the Mormons practice immersion and have memorialist views of the sacraments). Its largely apples and oranges because Baptists and Mormons are so dissimilar that even areas of "common ground" theologically may not be so common, but in fact, coincidence. Likewise, the fact that conservative and mainline theologians such as Pinnock and Moltmann hold a view which might overlap in a way with the Branch Davidians is so irrelevant I'm shocked you seem to use it. Okay, maybe I'm being a little melodramatic, but you can see why, right?

I am also unaware of any denomination which teaches, or any reputable Christian theologian who teaches that a view of the HS as feminine is a dividing line between orthodoxy and heresy. By the way, you are incorrect with regard to Gnosticism. Only a small minority of Gnostic groups embraced trinitarianism at all. See Elaine Pagels, "The Gnostic Gospels," ps. 48-69. The Valentians were among many Gnostic binitarians who recognized a divine couple, Father & Mother. Many of these binitarians viewed God as "masculofeminine" but others saw this language as entirely metaphorical. Among those Gnostics writings which present a trinity with a feminine HS, yes they were non-orthodox in their teachings (although the Gospel to the Hebrews is a possible exception since it exists only in secondary sources and so little of it is known). Finally, a large number of Gnostics who focused on the feminine used the Wisdom/Sophia imagery, which is entirely unrelated in those systems to the gender of the HS or to trinitiarianism period.

Despite my barbs, you are certainly right with regards to Smith. While a very few early versions of Scripture in Syriac might have used feminine pronouns for the Spirit, this is conjecture and merely serves your point. A person might argue that there would be nothing theologically wrong with using feminine pronouns in translation, but you are right that it is historically innovative and irrelevant to this discussion. And you are right, it does disservice a formally equivalent translation of the Greek in at least a few passages of John.Andowney (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here. You present a lot of information in only three paragraphs. A lot of which is highly relevant to the Christianity section of this article, both as regards content and as regards methodology. I think I happen to agree with most of what you say on both points, probably because we are both aware of the overwhelming source material that backs these things.

Regarding the Branch Davidian material, it's not my material. In fact, the only material of mine in this article is corrections to treatment of the Greek (which was what got me involved in this article in the first place). I simply sourced what was already in the Christian section, and revised text so that it better reflected what was in the sources.

I seem to recall long talk page discussions between people associated with the Branch Davidian collection and myself, in which I encouraged them (supported by an ex-member, to have their own section). In the context of this article, I think they are a notable group, because the gender of the Holy Spirit is foundational to their group's distinctiveness. However, I don't think they reflect a notable tradition within Christianity itself. This actually allowed them to provide a much fuller treatment of their own position than by "weasling" the Christian article to include their doctrines as typical legitimate alternatives. Much better to recruit "mainstream" support into their section, than to offer their views as challenges within the "mainstream" section. Perhaps this was not a good thing, it was just the consensus at the time.

Anyway, if I understand your post correctly, the main reflections seems to turn on "gender of Spirit" and "boundary of orthodoxy". The Church of Christ famously avoids tests of orthodoxy "no creed but Christ". Catholicism especially, and some Protestant groups as well, major on such matters, though. My impression is that the gender of the Spirit is an "incidental" kind of doctrine, and it is only groups with very "sensitive boundaries" or groups very sensitive about gender that really even consider it. If you like, an argument to the masculinity of the Spirit from the history of church literature is almost an argument from silence! It has been dealt with, but it has not been dwelt upon (if you'll forgive me, the Spirit does the dwelling upon;).

I personally have well defined views regarding both "boundaries" and "gender" as regards Christianity. Explicitly excluding them in editing at Wiki is easy, since Christianity means something different at Wiki than it does in my personal discourse. But I'm happy to admit that I am a consciencious objector to "doctrinal statements" other than Sola scriptura. I believe the other four Reformation "Sola"s, but these are derivative (imo). This makes me simultaneously more liberal and more fundamentalist than most Christians, in the Wiki understanding of Christianity, and makes my own Christian faith completely non-notable.

Regarding gender and Christianity, it follows that I do not consider it the boundary of orthodoxy, only the Bible is that on my view. However, my opinion is that the Bible speaks to gender issues and these are actually the number one practical outworking of Biblical faith. I would suggest it is the truth of the Bible, and the number one priority of gender that explains why even unbelievers tend to consider sexual matters ethical issues, and ethical issues of a peculiarly high order, whether they argue for liberty, legislation, freedom or punishment.

Gender may not be the imago Dei, but it is so closely associated with it, that imbalance in worship and imbalance in gender go hand in hand from the beginning (Gen 1-3), seen consistently in the sequel until reconciled in the final chapters of Revelation.

Please note, none of this is in the article (and should not be, of course). But I think it bears on why many might visit the article, and what motivates those of us who seek to edit or comment here.

Thanks again for your wide-ranging musing over the issues related to the Christian section. I hope mine contribute at least a little in the same "brainstorming" fashion. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the intro

1. "Many religions believe in". Little clumsy to say that religions "believe in" anything. Possible alternatives: 'Involve', 'include', 'postulate', 'describe'.
2. "a God". Common nouns don't capitalise. If you mean 'a god', use 'a god'. If you mean 'God', use 'God'.
3. "or gods". Again: The title is specific to God. Where's all this "gods" guff coming from?
4. "regarding gender as it applies to divine persons". More guff. Gender of God.

Ilkali (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

1. "Whoever believes in him will be saved." "Whosoever believes will be called children of God." What do reliable sources say religions are? The ones I read describe them as traditional metaphysical belief systems. The proposed alternatives to colloquial and academic usage seem, how should I put it, "clumsy"?
2. In the context of monotheistic religions God is capitalized, because there is only one referent. Neither Jews nor Christians think God is a proper noun. The Hebrew scriptures know God as Yahweh and the New Testament has a complex trinitarian idea. In Islam, Allah is not merely a title but also a name. So, Allah is the one and only God, would be an appropriate statement. The current context is unusual but not unique. You'll need to provide a source that excludes the possibility of a God.
3. You are contradicting yourself. If belief is such a fuzzy thing. How come you assume there is only one God. That's not what Hindus believe. You are entitled to your POV, even if it is two contradictory POVs, however, the article should present all notable POVs from the NPOV, which means not begging the question in favour of only one God.
4. Not guff. Read Christian theology on the trinity — three persons, one God. The terminology inadvertently lends itself to inclusion of putative gods other than the one Christian triune God. Handy for this kind of article.

There are complexities to handling terminology in an article like this, and "guff" is precisely what I keep removing from the article. People who believe there is no God, and no gods either, often inadvertently err, because they are unfamiliar with the range of different beliefs. People preoccupied by their own personal conviction that there is only one God, who they know about, also overlook things at times. Then there are people who believe the politics of gender trumps any other linguistic issues, but that is a POV, and here, clarity and neutrality rule, not social justice or proselytism.

I'm not accusing Ilkali of any of the above, but I think you need to interact with a fair few sources and ideas more explicitly before I'm going to be able to see any coherence to your comments. Looking forward to that. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

""Whoever believes in him will be saved." "Whosoever believes will be called children of God." What do reliable sources say religions are?". Do you seriously not recognise the distinction between adherents of a religion and the religion itself? Yes, people believe in gods. Religions don't. Religions don't have minds.

"In the context of monotheistic religions God is capitalized, because there is only one referent. Neither Jews nor Christians think God is a proper noun". Most Jews and Christians don't know what a proper noun is. I suspect you don't either. The presence of a determiner is prima facie evidence for this particular token being a common noun, as is its conjunction with another common noun (gods). The MoS clearly states that common nouns do not capitalise.

"You are contradicting yourself. If belief is such a fuzzy thing. How come you assume there is a God." ...what? Ilkali (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a style difference on the first point. I prefer concise language. "Religions believe ..." This works by synecdoche and cuts out "guff" like, "The people who belong to religions believe ..." I do write the latter kind of sentence myself too sometimes, but only when the context means such precision is really necessary. There is no ambiguity here. And I detest guff. So I need more pursuasion to accept it.

Bible is a common noun that capitalizes. It is also a book that doesn't receive italics. There are all sorts of exceptions to various rules that creep in by convention and make sense in context. You have an unusual understanding of determiners, which frequently precede proper nouns the United States, the Thirty Years War, the Tlingit, the Federal Beureau of Intelligence, the Arctic, the Earth. Please don't use disparaging comments of other editors or of religious groups. Attack the issue not the people. If you know prima facie, you will also know ad hominem.

Since you've now clarified what your first point was, I see you weren't contradicting yourself, just being terse to the point of ambiguity. Your problem with religions believing has to do with style, not epistemology. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"We have a style difference on the first point. I prefer concise language". Metonymy has its limits. If I told you that "Judaism doesn't eat pigs", you might deduce that I am using the religion's name to reference its adherents, but you would (hopefully) not consider it an elegant statement. The same applies here, albeit to a lesser degree. And by proposing an excessively lengthy alternative, you posit a false dichotomy. The text I used - "God is a component of many religions" - is roughly as long as "Many religions believe in God" but doesn't have the literal inaccuracy.

"Bible is a common noun that capitalizes". And the reason we know to capitalise it is that the MoS says so. Guess what the MoS says about common noun god.

"Please don't use disparaging comments of other editors or of religious groups. Attack the issue not the people". If you're going to appeal to authorities, I have every right to comment on the reliability of those authorities. Furthermore, I suggest you revisit the definition of an ad hominem. "X's opinion on grammar should be ignored because he's fat" is an ad hominem. "X's opinion on grammar should be ignored because he doesn't know anything about grammar" is not.

"you weren't contradicting yourself, just being terse to the point of ambiguity". Surface ambiguity isn't a problem when people competently apply the principle of charity. You had to choose between the literal, intended meaning (that religions are incapable of belief) and an insane meaning that denied that theists believe in gods. Tip: Don't pick the insane meaning. Ilkali (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You added more to your original reply after I had responded to it. I'll address the additional material here.

"Read Christian theology on the trinity — three persons, one God". Trinitarian doctrines are an abuse of language. Is each member of the trinity individually God? Then it is sufficient to describe God. Is each member not individually God? Then they cannot be the subject of a 'Gender of God' article. In no case is it necessary to talk about "divine persons" in the intro. Ilkali (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict when I tried to save each of my replies. So from my perspective, you replied to my comments before I completed them. No matter. You have three main points, all matters related to style. 1. Religions are abstract, where adherents are concrete and do the actual believing. 2. Although God is a proper noun from a monotheistic perspective, references to a generic god in a polytheistic or atheist context use a common noun. 3. Despite being a widely read person, divine person is a collocation that has not been part of your personal vocabulary until engaging with this article. This is likely to be true of other educated readers, involves reader surprise and hence infelicity of expression.

All three points seem fair enough to me, however, none of them are decisive. In fact, I've argued above that literature in this topic area (and sometimes in general) follows conventions, and the lead of this article follows them.

You haven't defended the ambiguity of your first point, since religions don't postulate or describe either, unless you permit synecdoche, in which case there's no objection to them believing either. I read you charitably, assuming your first point was merely "clumsy", not self-contradictory. In the end I actually think we agree, synecdoche is so second nature to readers that a wide range of verbs can be used in this context. Belief seems to me to be the lexical selection of choice because of the simplicity of the word. However, the immediate objection I raised was the implicit weasling I saw in the proposed alternatives.

• (a) God is a component of many religions
• (b) Many religions believe in God

To me, (a) is "guffish", to use your phrase, it's unclear, what does component mean in this sentence? It's vague.

• (c) Some schools of thought consider Oswald unlikely to be the assassin.
• (d) All political parties believe in co-operative effort towards achieving policy objectives.

Still unconvinced.

The word god is quite frequently used as a common noun, as in (slang) OMG! In full, this is Oh my god! This expression refers no further than the emotional reaction of the speaker. God has little more than superlative force. In fact, ancient semitic languages show evidence of similar use. Mother of all battles in some ancient dialects would idiomatically be expressed as a battle of god, with no metaphysical implications. However, where a speaker intends reference to one, unique deity, the convention is to capitalize, even when this God is putative!

• "After this things get more philosophical, with a look at various arguments for a 'God' or at least something 'outside' the universe." — Review of Paul Davies, The Mind of God.

I should probably update the MoS if this isn't spelled out clearly. When god is a common noun it is lower case. When it is a proper noun it is upper case. Same as bible and many other words, eg: 'OED is the bible of the English language maven.' There are plenty of context where the distinction is helpful for clarity. This article is one such context.

While I admire your use of synechdoche in, "Trinitarian doctrines are an abuse of language." Which language do they abuse? English? Or Greek? But regardless of what the semantic content of your statement may actually be, this really is not a POV a Wiki editor can carry into an article. Check the literature, God is personal in Abrahamic religions. This is fundamental to his nature. In polytheism, the personalities of divinities that are discussed, or implied via narrative. It is true that in philosophy God or gods have sometimes been approached as entities, however, in religion people do not worship things they worship beings and attribute personal characteristics. Divinity in human thought is super-human, but not impersonal. Sumerian has grammatical classes personal and impersonal and gods fall in the personal class.

Gender of God in linguistics and philosophy could be worthwhile additions to this article. In both, personhood features in the literature. The only place entity might possibly fit is in 20th century western philosophy, though I'm happy to be corrected on that. Attestations of entity and impersonal characterisation of God and gods in literature is not something I've explored, I imagine it would require fairly diligent research to uncover in reliable, notable sources.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure our discussion is very fair. I've spent a lot of time reading books about God and gods, from all sorts of PsOV. I can see sense in all the things you say, but they just don't interact with the conventions in the literature in the topic area. Now, I hate saying that, because it stinks. I hate feeling excluded from discussion of various topics because the students of that subject area have their very specific jargon. However, I have slowly come to respect why precision of expression in various areas actually helps people get on board. Despite remaining unconvinced, I'm impressed by and have enjoyed your rigorous challenges, and I'm happy to hear more. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"There was an edit conflict when I tried to save each of my replies. So from my perspective, you replied to my comments before I completed them". Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you'd done anything underhanded. That is indeed what I did, although I wasn't aware at the time that they were incomplete.

"2. Although God is a proper noun from a monotheistic perspective, references to a generic god in a polytheistic or atheist context use a common noun". No, that's not my point. My point is that, in any English-speaker's lexicon, there are two 'god' words with the same pronunciation but different syntactic status and meaning. One is a proper noun referencing the entity God, the other is a common noun denoting all deities.

"3. Despite being a widely read person, divine person is a collocation that has not been part of your personal vocabulary until engaging with this article". I disagree again. The term is not unfamiliar or uncomfortable, I just don't think the sentence using it in this article is appropriate. I gave an argument for that position and you didn't reply to it.

"You haven't defended the ambiguity of your first point, since religions don't postulate or describe either, unless you permit synecdoche, in which case there's no objection to them believing either". I disagree with the claim that religions cannot literally postulate or describe. Neither verb, in my English, requires an volitional agent. And as I already explained, metonymy has its limits.

"I read you charitably, assuming your first point was merely "clumsy", not self-contradictory". It was neither. You should've picked option C.

"the immediate objection I raised was the implicit weasling I saw in the proposed alternatives". How on Earth could one be more weasley than the other? In both, the relevant noun phrase is "many religions", and neither specifies which religions.

"(a) is "guffish", to use your phrase, it's unclear, what does component mean in this sentence? It's vague". What could it mean?

"The word god is quite frequently used as [...]". This entire section of your reply is dedicated to explaining to me what I already explained to you: That proper nouns capitalise and common nouns don't. I already offered evidence for the word in question being a common noun: It is preceded by an indefinite article and conjoins with a common noun. Your counter-argument seems based on the fact that the entire noun phrase 'a god' is singular, which is true but irrelevant. Like most people, I only have one mother, but I say "I have a mother", not "I have a Mother".

"Which language do they abuse? English? Or Greek? But regardless of what the semantic content of your statement may actually be, this really is not a POV a Wiki editor can carry into an article". But it's a POV an editor can carry. My position on the article is not based on that POV.

"Check the literature, God is personal in Abrahamic religions. This is fundamental to his nature. In polytheism, the [...]". Did you suddenly switch from the topic of the trinity to that of English pronouns? "It" is the most appropriate pronoun we have for an entity whose gender is not just indeterminate but undefined. I have no objection, however, to replacing it with something non-pronominal.

Finally, this issue seems to have fallen by the wayside, so I'm reviving it: If we're talking about the gender of God, there is no need to talk about any deities that are not God, making the 'or gods' pointless. Ilkali (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

o.d. Well, that brings back my original difficulty with your objections (or with the title). We cannot assume one God, generic as this God may be. We could, perhaps, either remove Hinduism from the article, or change the article title; but I don't really like either option (they miss the intention of the entry). Instead, I think this article requires some neat handling of the lead, or the restoration of material that was previously deleted. I'm not sure the lead can bear all the weight, hence my post below, which I was in the middle of composing when you replied above. Divine person, btw, avoids both a donkey pronoun and the awful God or gods ... God or gods, and has the advantage of introducing terminology from the literature.

PS weasling is not about quantification. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"We cannot assume one God, generic as this God may be". I'm still not sure you recognise the distinction between the common noun god and the proper noun God. Polytheistic religions aren't a problem unless they describe two or more God entities. That's not the case with Hinduism.

"Divine person, btw, avoids both a donkey pronoun and the awful God or gods ... God or gods, and has the advantage of introducing terminology from the literature.". "or gods" is unnecessary, as argued above. 'Divine persons' is inappropriate because it denotes more than just God, and God is the only divine entity relevant to the article. "have a range of views regarding gender as it applies to divine persons" does not entail "have a range of views regarding gender as it applies to God".

"PS weasling is not about quantification". PS I asked you to demonstrate that one was more weasley than the other.

Could you try to reply to the arguments I make? It's kind of irritating to spend time writing replies to your points only to see you ignore them completely. Ilkali (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon! I've spent considerable time attempting to respond courteously to rude, ambiguous and erroneous points.

This article has always been about the way people view the gender of the deities of their religions.

That is what it will remain unless you gain consensus to delete Hinduism. If my experience of Wiki is anything to go by, that is not going to happen in the near future.

The best complexion I can put on your original comment is that you feel the article doesn't reflect the title. It deals with a mulitplicity of gods or Gods. It would be more acurately described as Gender of gods, and I would almost agree.

There are many articles at Wiki with difficult titles for diverse reasons, but Gender of God is not such a bad title in some ways. Religions with essentially one God would all find it natural, and find their own views within a chronologically organised synoptic presentation of the views the major religions have on the subject. It is certainly a better title than God and gender.

Gender of God works as a title because as a link or as a search term it is quite specific. However, once you hit the article, NPOV kicks in and transforms God into a variable that can take several values: God (Judaism), God (Christianity), or even god (Hinduism). God in the context of the lead of this article is a generic proper noun. It is technically a non refering term, hence taking an adjective of indefiniteness -- a -- in this case. It doesn't apply to Hinduism, where god is a common not a proper noun, so a disjunction is required to describe the scope of the article. The word gods, although also generic, remains a bare plural as the indefinite marker for plurals in English is (arguably) a null marker.

The lead needs to describe the article, not the search term. This is the case with many redirects at Wiki. Again, for a variety of reasons, some articles are the end point of multiple redirections, some of which can involve significant semantic shifts. Shifts from plural to singular (or less often singular to plural -- peacock) do not cause much surprise. Shifts from singular to generic are also generally no big deal Englishman.

Is there room for confusion in this? Yes. But not a lot. In two years you're the first to suggest it. The syntax and typographic conventions involved are unusually complex, and explaining how they produce the semantics is also complex, but it is the explaining that is hard, not the actual sentences.

The sentences are easy, I'm happy to wait for a second opinion on any problem with them. The syntax has now been explained in as much detail as I have patience to cover. Thanks for your interest and your suggestions. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"This article has always been about the way people view the gender of the deities of their religions". Then the title, which is specific to the deity God, is inappropriate.

"That is what it will remain unless you gain consensus to delete Hinduism". Why would I want to delete Hinduism? You're the only one who's talked about that.

"Gender of God works as a title because as a link or as a search term it is quite specific. However, once you hit the article, NPOV kicks in and transforms God into a variable that can take several values: God (Judaism), God (Christianity), or even god (Hinduism)". Linking and searching are non-issues. We have redirects for that kind of thing. If Wikipedia is to have a God article, distinct from its deity article, it must take a stance that God references a specific entity, such that there is no way the term can reference a god that is not God.

"It doesn't apply to Hinduism, where god is a common not a proper noun". The proper noun God is meaningful in the context of Hinduism, where it conventionally refers to Brahman or acts as a deictic indexing whatever manifestation the speaker worships. There is no problem with Hinduism being discussed in a Gender of God article.

"I beg your pardon! I've spent considerable time attempting to respond courteously to rude, ambiguous and erroneous points". You've spent half that time attacking a position I don't hold and then blaming me for it, and half waffling about irrelevancies. In the few cases where you actually addressed something I said, you made some assertion and became suddenly blind to any challenges to it. I had to ask twice why "God is a component of many religions" is more 'weasley' than "Many religions believe in God", and still haven't had an answer. When you claimed that my preferred sentence was "vague", I asked you to explain how. I still haven't had an answer. When you (erroneously) identified the "religions believe" text as synecdoche, I pointed out that there are limits to metonymy and illustrated the point with an example. Still no answer. If I am rude, it is because you seem completely uninterested in genuinely discussing the issue and yet are adamant that no changes be made to the article. After a certain time, it becomes difficult to assume good faith. Ilkali (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am no longer going to feed your trolling. I have answered every point you raise. You simply fail to acknowledge this. Extending discussion is pointless since you refuse to admit error, or entertain options other than your own.

From scholarly literature. Synecdoche with political parties and believe. The same can be demonstrated from literature on religion with even more attestations.

• "Political parties believe that they need more money." — R Johnston and C Pattie, 'New Labour, new electoral system, new electoral geographies?' Political Geography, 2000.
• "Most of the political parties believe that they do not need to include female candidates." — R Tahri, "Women's Political Participation: The Case of Morocco", International IDEA/Electoral Institute of Southern Africa, 2003.
• "The political parties believe the following probabilities to hold." — A Bhaduri, EB Barbier, 'Political Altruism of Transboundary Water Sharing', 2005.
• "If political parties believe the thesis." — A Finlayson, et. al, 'The Interpretive Approach in Political Science', The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2004.

You have failed to establish any case. All you do is continue to write incoherent criticisms of my comments, without engaging with any of the extensive literature I allude to or quote from that supports them. Where any other reader might share concerns along the lines of yours, the answers lie in the discussion above. Extending discussion is pointless, since you've raised nothing new since the beginning, and those points have been addressed. You want to call God, god, entity or it in the context of another article, go ahead — in this one, no. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"I am no longer going to feed your trolling". Ah, there it is. The last resort.

"From scholarly literature. Synecdoche with political parties and believe [...]". Yes, that's synecdoche, because political parties are composed of people; if the people weren't there, the parties would not exist. Religions are not composed of people, which is why the phenomenon in "religions believe" is metonymy, a superclass of synecdoche.

"All you do is continue to write incoherent criticisms of my comments". I'd ask you for examples, but we both know you don't have any. Ilkali (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, religions believe is synecdoche not metonymy. Synecdoche is a very broad term, metonymy is much more narrow. Parliament's Speaker told reporters ... utilizes a title derived from synecdoche not metonymy. Synecdoche does not imply metonymy, so metonymy cannot be a "superclass" (provide a reliable source that says contrary). The reverse is almost true. Since metonymy refers explicitly to a part or a whole while intending to be understood as refering to the other, it is very frequently also an example of synecdoche — A thousand swords marched ..., warriors are often associated with swords. However, synecdoche need not, in fact follow — They heard the LORD God's sound walking in the Garden of Eden. The sound was not walking, so this is metonymy, but sound is not normally associated with the LORD God, it is a circumlocution utilizing reference to part of the divinity or his actions to suggest the divinity himself in a reverentially indirect manner — metonymy yes, synecdoche no. These devices are independent ideas, hence we have two words. They overlap considerably, which leads some to get confused. You brought metonymy into this discussion, not I. Religions believe is synecdoche (as I pointed out), not metonymy (the paper tiger you introduced).

I'm splitting your comment because I replied to the below half of it before you posted the above half.

"No, religions believe is synecdoche not metonymy. Synecdoche is a very broad term, metonymy is much more narrow". Other way around. You love to insert wikilinks, presumably to belittle your opponent, but have you considered clicking any of them yourself?

"These devices are independent ideas, hence we have two words". Your argument here (along with its tacit denial of hyponymy) is hilarious, and reveals beyond any doubt (if there ever was any) that you have never formally studied linguistics. Ilkali (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Hindu and Buddhist religions believe ..." — Manfredo and Dayer, 'Concepts for Exploring the Social Aspects of Human–Wildlife Conflict in a Global Context', Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2004.
• "Not all religions believe in gods." — Neitz and Spickard, 'Steps toward a sociology of religious experience', Sociological Analysis, 1990.

There are hundreds more citations available like this. Your quarrel is with academic literature, which is the standard expected of Wiki articles and editors. I can only point you there. I can't make you conform, nor do I wish to do so. As regards the article, however, it needs to conform, and that is within my capacity and hence my responsibility. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The only claim my previous comment made about 'religions believe' is that it is not an example of synecdoche. As for the stylistic value, finding two examples of its use does not dispel the claim that it is clumsy wording.

"As regards the article, however, it needs to conform". What ridiculousness is this? The only way editors are obliged to conform to sources is in the informational content their contributions convey. There is a requirement to accurately represent the claims made in those sources, but there is no requirement to use the same wordings. Besides that, you've done nothing to show that your preferred wording is the dominant one. You're scraping the barrel a little here, old chap. Ilkali (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Again you're not reading all I write. I mentioned I found hundreds of examples of religions believe. That was just in one location, and I'm not going to transcribe more. Political parties also believe in published English usage. "[Name of group of people] believe" is acceptable in formal written English, possibly even prefered. If I gave you a thousand examples you would not be satisfied, that's your problem not mine. I've recorded enough for other editors to see objective evidence to decide for themselves.

Whatever term we use to describe this usage is ultimately interesting but irrelevant. You are wrong about religions believe not being metonymy, it is an example of institution-for-people-responsible metonymy. This also makes it an example of synecdoche as it involves the whole-part relation. I admit I muddled the definitions in the last comment above.

I am also happy to say that I have frequently seen the suggestion that synecdoche is a specific kind of metonymy in reliable sources. I happen to disagree with it. There are too many cases where part is substituted for whole or vice versa but do not constitute a conventional association. SIL admits such as metonymy, by dissociating conventional association from their definition of the device. I prefer to identify the device only when there is conventional association to support such a claim. I see conventional association as characteristic of metonymy, not one specific form it. I've not read anyone else that says this, but then I've also not read anyone actually calling an unconventional whole-part relation metonymy either, synecdoche is the natural term to use in that case. My preference in this is not something I could push in a Wiki article, since it's not backed by sources. It's not relevant to this article so that's where this ends.

As for formal study, it's a wonderful thing, but study does not end when examinations do. Academic treatment of language has featured in all four formal qualifications I hold, and features very heavily indeed in the one I'm currently pursuing. But the qualifications of editors at Wiki are irrelevant, anyone can edit, even you and me. What matters are what sources say, and the usage that they exemplify. In future discussions you have at Wiki, I recommend you discuss the views and usage of sources, rather than express your own opinions of other editors.

"Again you're not reading all I write. I mentioned I found hundreds of examples of religions believe". What you've read and what you've presented as evidence are two different things.

"[Name of group of people] believe" is acceptable in formal written English, possibly even prefered". That's not the pattern we're talking about. The name of a religion is not the name of a group of people. Do you agree that "Judaism doesn't eat pork" is a clumsy way of saying "Jews don't eat pork"? Do you agree that this is exactly the same kind of metonymy as in religions believe?

"If I gave you a thousand examples you would not be satisfied, that's your problem not mine". If I gave you a thousand examples of people spelling ridiculous as <<rediculous>>, would you be satisfied that it is the proper spelling?

"You are wrong about religions believe not being metonymy, it is an example of institution-for-people-responsible metonymy.". What... the hell... are you doing? I've been saying it was metonymy from the beginning! I was the one who introduced the term to the discussion by describing religions believe as such. You are the one who asserted it wasn't. You can't just swap our stances when you realise you were wrong, Alastair. It doesn't work that way.

"This also makes it an example of synecdoche as it involves the whole-part relation". A religion's adherents are not part of the religion any more than a book's readers are part of the book. But seriously, this doesn't matter. Why is it that most of what you write here is about matters that don't concern the article? Ilkali (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A question! Wow! A nice change.

The answer is simple, since you consistently work by addressing me rather than the issue, all I can do is parry personal attacks, or let you have the last word in a long tangent about Alastair and not about the issues.

Ilkali states opinion. Alastair quotes examples contrary to Ilkali's opinion. Ilaki questions Alastair's methodology or competance. Alastair cites evidence in support of his arguments. Ilkali again questions matters pertaining to Alastair or his methodology rather than the original issues.

It's an endless chain leading to solipsism. Ilkali says this doesn't seem right. Alastair says here's why it's OK. Ilkali raises the bar and questions those reasons. Alastair plays along and provides support at the next level. This goes on and on until we're discussing abstractions far removed from the original simple issues.

1. Is religions believe acceptable formal English? Yes.
2. Is God capitalised in the context of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism? Yes.
3. Is divine person attested theological usage? Yes.

Empirical answers are available to the questions here.

I happen to find empirical answers rather unsatisfying, especially if they go against my intuition. I presume that is true of Ilaki, so I offer the best explanations I know of in the literature to explain not only that the above are so, but also why they are so. More fool me, because answers to why questions can be strung out forever. Why do I have to go to bed now? So you can be alert tomorrow. Why do I have to be alert tomorrow? So you get the most out of school. Why do I have to get the most out of school? So you can get a good job. Why do I have to have a good job? ...

But I'm over this Ilkali. The books answer you. There are plenty of sources mentioned or alluded to above, and plenty of search terms as well. I'm not going to write an essay on usage conventions to footnote every choice in the text. There's a superabundance of that now in this discussion alone.

If you want to improve the article, the way forward is for you to propose a concrete alternative ... without it or entity (unless you can cite support for that usage) and inclusive of both the monotheistic "God" POV and the polytheistic "gods" POV. I wish you well, 'cause it's a jolly tricky thing to do without tripping over something. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"The answer is simple, since you consistently work by addressing me rather than the issue, all I can do is parry personal attacks". Do you consider "suchandsuch is not synecdoche" a personal attack? That's the issue you've been spending most of your effort on in the past few comments, and it's clearly not related to improving the article.

The chains of questions you complain about are my best efforts to anchor you to the topic at hand rather than letting you set up smokescreens and waltz away on tangents.

In one of the very first posts, I identified that religions believe is metonymy and pointed out that metonymic relations are subject to constraints. You immediately dropped the topic. We're now tens of thousands of characters later, and I've managed to get you to admit that I was right about the metonymy. How many years of my life would I have to dedicate to getting you to understand that the construction itself is clumsy and unsightly?

In one of the very first posts, I argued that the noun in a God is a common noun. At first you denied it, then you insisted that it is a common noun but that its capitalisation is a special case, then you changed your mind again and claimed that it is a special kind of proper noun. How long until you consider that maybe you're not qualified for this?

In one of the very first posts, I agreed that divine person is a meaningful and generally useful term, but argued against its inclusion on a number of grounds. Poof. Smokescreen. Waltzing away. I never got you to as much as acknowledge my arguments, let alone respond to them. Even now you're still attacking a position I don't hold.

You're not cut out for this. The best thing you can do for yourself is realise that. Ilkali (talk) 16:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Restoring vandalized text

Interestingly, over the two years I've watched this article, it has been one of the most consistently vandalised articles on my watchlist. I've found this somewhat strange, since the article is quite short on reliable source coverage of any general material on the topic. There's barely enough content here for vandalism to be possible.

In due course (which may be a long time), I'll return the text that distinguished between monotheistic and polytheistic religions, which is clearly significant given the title, which appears to refer to only one God.

The history of the article is that it was moved and disambiguated. Once there was only a single article God and gender, which had attracted a lot of material on Bible translation. Now, I believe we have three articles: Gender of God, Gender and religion and Gender in Bible translation.

The current title is not entirely satisfactory. Is it appropriate to lump monotheism and polytheism together? Is it appropriate to use a neuter pronoun for God, when none of the religions mentioned use such a pronoun?

If the lead of the article refers to an IT, I'm happy to delete Hinduism (the only polytheistic religion mentioned) and change IT to HE, since he is the standard pronoun for reference to God in all the religions listed.

Happy to hear other thoughts. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Only about a quarter of this seems relevant to the intro text dispute. What vandalism? Who's talking about mono/polytheism? Ilkali (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just about through with this discussion. Rudeness is not conducive to making a point ... if you have one!

If you can't see the relevance try thinking a little more deeply, reading more of the article and those with which it is associated, explore the edit history and archives. When I challenge articles I research the background, and if I still don't understand. I work out what I don't understand, frame questions and ask them directly, politely and without criticism.

My comments here are part of documenting the history of the article, they are not aimed at addressing any particular concerns you might have, since you'd typed nothing when they were written. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"My comments here are part of documenting the history of the article, they are not aimed at addressing any particular concerns you might have". They appeared directly after you exhorted me to justify my edit on the talk page, and they make explicit reference to some of the things I changed. Is it unreasonable to think you might be aiming it at me? People don't often create new sections on talk pages just to document article histories - especially without explicitly stating that they're doing as much. Ilkali (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Your edit prompted the comments. And yes, alluding to it explains a small part of the post. In the big picture though, your edit is a small matter; 25% would be a generous porportion of text to address what is a tiny blip. It is somewhat self-absorbed to suggest a general comment about the article should be 100% concerned with one edit you made, don't you think? Alastair Haines (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Read my above comment again. Read the words, one at a time, and think about what they mean. And if you can manage it (and recent experience suggests that you can't), try thinking about it from my perspective instead of yours. Ilkali (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of viewpoint

Alastair, after some time gone, I look forward to continuing our discussion of this article. I think several changes need to be made the body of the article to bring it into compliance with a "neutral point of view."

1. I think as a background to this whole discussion, I would like to see whether we can agree that, prior to the last century, the issue of the gender of God (or the specific trinitarian persons) was largely moot among Christian theologians. Extant texts preserve only a handful of discussions, at most, by theologians that really examine these questions of divine gender. For the most part, where statements that are relevant to this discussion are found, can we agree that these particular issues of divine gender were not in focus, but merely peripheral? In other words, I am saying that I doubt any serious scholar disputes that throughout Christian history, the vast majority of theologians have considered the trinitarian persons to be neither male nor female, but have considered masculine language appropriate. At the same time, I am saying that it wasn't even an issue on which many reflected.

2. "The names Father and Son clearly denote masculinity" is a biased statement in terms of what it omits. I agree that, obviously, these are masculine terms, but certainly these names are not the only ones used of the first and second persons of the Trinity. I agree that these names are masculine; feminist theologians (who while a minority, are certainly not fringe) would dispute that these names imply that these trinitarian persons are more masculine than feminine. Perhaps we can come up with a way to convey that the masculinity of the Father and Son is the historically dominant position in such a way that recognizes that the question of using feminine language wasn't really asked until modern times, and that since it has been asked, while the masculine language view is still the consensus, there are now many theologians who dissent.

3. "Regarding the Spirit, the Gospel of John implies masculinity" is also biased. I am aware of the argument here, but the Gospel's thrust seems to be to argue for personhood, not make a statement regarding gender. Can you cite a few scholars (and works) where "ekeinos" in John is interpreted to have a bearing on the the discussion of the gender of the Holy Spirit? I am not aware of any that mention the use of the masculine except in the context of pointing to this as evidence of the Spirit's personhood. "Implies" just seems too strong for me, as though scholars who would say "no it doesn't" are irrational or are ignoring an obviously logical conclusion.

4. "The New Testament also refers to the Holy Spirit as masculine" is problematic on two counts. First, it implies more than the truth of the matter. In fact, the New Testament uses grammatically masculine language only in a few passages in John. This sentence is too vague. Also, perhaps it could read something along the lines of refers to the HS using masculine language. The point here is neutrality in the article, not setting it up to appear that the use of the pronouns logically requires any particular opinion about the HS's gender, even though one can plausibly argue that they lend support to a particular position.

5. "That male one" is a huge problem. I appreciate the source, but I can give you several that say "that one." Would you like them? In fact, Strong's indicates "that one." The key, as I see it even in Thayer, is "the one there" - the specificity. By the way, Thayer doesn't say "that male one" but "that man, woman, thing..." - certainly, it isn't logically necessary to read John as referring to the HS as a a man?!

6. "This breaking of the grammatical agreement, expected by native language readers, is a clear indication of the authorial intention to unambiguously convey the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and also the Spirit's masculinity." - The sentence would be okay if it indicated that this is an interpretation, even the historically majority one, but it is not neutral as it stands. I agree that we don't want to overstate how the statistical strength of minority viewpoints, but at the same time, we don't want to make historically majoritarian viewpoints seem like the only logical ones. If the indication were clear that the intention were unambiguous, no serious scholar would dispute the implications, but on the issue of the gender of the HS, there is dispute, etc.

7. "This makes it clear that God has masculine gender, rather than male sex; as indicated by the pronoun He in the official English translation of Ille in the Latin original.[8][9]" This is a misrepresentation of the Catholic Catechism and needs to be changed. It is absolutely not the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that the Holy Spirit (or God generally) has masculine gender. The Latin option was masculine or feminine; neuter has never been used for God in Catholic theology because it would deny God's personhood. But don't make more of this statement than it is.

Here's to a good discussion!Andowney (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there are issues regarding NPOV regarding the overall article, but since your points 1-7 are all related to the Christian section, I'll take it that this is what you have issue with. I think it is also worth noting that all your points are directly related to Christian views on the gender of the persons of the trinity. In other words, they are all directly relevant to the topic of the article and the topic of the Christian section within it. Finally, I'll note that nearly all the points have been previously addressed on the talk page associated with the current text. But here are some brief answers to your comments.

1. "The vast majority of theologians have considered the trinitarian persons to be neither male nor female." I cannot agree with this, please cite even one historical theologian that says this, or even one current commentator that suggests it of those who have gone before.
2. "The names Father and Son clearly denote masculinity." I stand by the clearly in this sentence. These names indicate role (ruler and heir, consider Hebrews 1-2), it is hard to imagine any more concise attribution of gender (irrespective of whatever they may be understood to intend regarding sex of the referents). Speculation regarding spiritual rather than biological sex does exist (and I am personally interested in it), but this is hardly representative of Christian views of the gender of God. WP:UNDUE
3. "Regarding the Spirit, the Gospel of John implies masculinity." There already is one citation for this. Another is DB Knox, The Everlasting God, where chapter 3 is supplemented by an extended appendix, which deals with gender among other things. Knox' college also produced a collection of essays on Personhood and Sexuality in which I seem to recollect discussion of gender and Spirit. There is also considerable treatment of the subject in discussions related to gender and Bible translation. The only alternative to the masculine reading of the Spirit is the non-impersonal reading (discussed hypothetically in the literature). Because there are so many other cues to establish non-impersonal in the text, I have read and heard the general point that the only reasons not to accept the natural masculine reading would lie either in prior commitment to a feminine or neuter Spirit, or to scepticism about anything not made redundantly explicit. But the decisive points are that John certainly precludes both a feminine Holy Spirit (because John could have made her personal by describing her as her but did not do so) and a neuter Holy Spirit (because he changed the natural neuter pronoun to masculine). John is biased, not his interpreters. But this is all ultimately beside the point. A reference from a very well known book and author have been provided and not even one reference has been provided for a contrary reading.
4. "The New Testament also refers to the Holy Spirit as masculine." Four versions of the NT doing precisely this are provided, one of them a gender neutral translation.
5. "That male one." Is precisely what ekeinos means, though it often means simply he (see John 1, and translations in the passages mentioned above). You are quite correct, however, as in English, he is often used generically. Both the demonstrative force and the significance of the gender marking depend on context. Bible translations are the obvious reliable sources to establish what ekeinos means in context.
6. "This breaking of the grammatical agreement..." is not in any way biased, it is a simple statement of fact, backed by sources. Not only that, I'm not aware of any sources that argue to the contrary. OR would be suggesting this without the suggestion already existing in print. POV would be expressing preference for this over other views. Clearly neither applies. You keep on suggesting that there's some kind of historical dispute about this ... where? The same sources that note that the HS has always been considered male, based on John, are also the ones that offer the hypothetical alternatives, only to explain why these have never actually been presented. A masculine Holy Spirit is effectively the only reasonable alternative. Groups that have believed the Holy Spirit to be female have not argued this from John, nor have they defended against John, some didn't even have the Greek (the Syrians in all likelihood). A neuter Holy Spirit has not been put forward by anyone afaik. Feel free to add any major view that can be found in the literature. But it is no argument against unanimity that it fails to articulate other opinions. Is truth subordinate to diversity of opinion?
7. "He in the official English translation of Ille in the Latin original." Historically, I had to correct a "quote" of this statement that tried to make it say more than it does. Quotation marks were used, yet when I checked, they did not reflect either the English or the Latin of the document. It is an interesting thesis that you propose, that the Catholic Church considers God to be without gender, using the pronoun he for him only in the sense of being personal, not in the sense of being masculine. A source that says this would be helpful, otherwise it strikes me as OR. Of course, many feminists would not agree with you, because all uses of he imply masculinity on their reading. We know they are wrong and self-defeating in this, but that's another story. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some responses.

1. This is key so let's begin with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (being the largest Christian denomination worldwide. Sec. 279, which is quoted in part here, reads "By calling God 'Father' the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature...human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinctions between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father." Certainly, the Father imagery is predominant in the catechism, as it was used in the NT. God is never called "mother" in any canonical Christian text. But, according to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, God is neither male nor female (I am using biological categories here). Further, if we move beyond biological into the symbolic (and spiritual? an interesting thought, "spiritual sex"), God is origin and standard of both fatherhood and motherhood. Going on to section 370, we read "In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for teh difference between the sexes. But the respective 'perfections' of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God..." Jerome, in his Commentary on Isaiah points precisely to the fact that ruah is feminine, pneuma is neuter, and spiritus is Latin as evidence that God transcends all categories of sexuality (for the Latin, refer to Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus. Series latina. 24.419b). Do I need to start referencing Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine and Aquinas about God's incomprehensiblity? Pope John Paul II, in On the Dignity and Vocation of Women, says "This characteristic of biblical language--its anthropomorphic way of speaking about God--points indirectly to the mystery of the eternal 'generating' which belongs to the inner life of God. Nevertheless, in itself this 'generating' has neither 'masculine' nor 'feminine' qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way..." My point is that no major theologians have urged that God is either male or female, questions of masculinity or femininity aside. Certainly we agree on that if God has no physical body. I am urging further that we can agree that the issue of God's symoblic/metaphorical/spiritual(?) gender is a relatively recent discussion. Masculinity was simply assumed in centuries past without any real conviction behind it.

A quick point, then the main one. Either masculinity of the Father was assumed (your last assertion) or it was not assumed (your main case). I presume you mean sometimes it was and sometimes it wasn't. (That would be the only justification for a POV tag btw.) [A.H.]

I must have been unclear. It was assumed without necessarily being asserted. I am saying the worldview of the time made masculinity a natural interpretation, but it was not one that a critical (in an academic, not necessarily "criticism" sense) eye was never actually turned toward. It would be like those who are quick to dismiss the total truthfulness of the Christian Scriptures by pointing to texts implying a flat earth or a geocentric viewpoint. I'm not necessarily advocating a view of Scripture as inerrant, but the fact that several biblical authors wrote in a way which assumed scientifically inaccurate viewpoints does not logically, necessarily imply that they were making assertions that these assumed viewpoints were truthful. It simply wasn't even on the radar to think otherwise! Good analogy at least? Andowney (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed! :) Let me say it back to you. It is hardly surprising that God has been considered to be masculine pretty much throughout history, since this has accorded with social contexts that have pretty much uncritically accepted androcentric worldviews. You are proposing the plausible thesis that God's masculinity has been presumed as uncritically as social androcentrism. With minor but significant exceptions I agree with you.

Additionally however, I think the contrapositive is also signficant, that when society is questioning androcentrism, it is unsurprising that it questions God's masculinity. There is an important sense in which doubt must be cast on recent considerations regarding God's gender, to precisely the same extent that such doubt is cast on past considerations -- current views tend to presume gender-neutrality in precisely the way previous views tended to presume androcentricity.

So I agree with you, but can you see how it is a two-edged sword? Alastair Haines (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The CCC is very clear about presenting both fatherhood and motherhood as roles implying nothing about sex (as indeed you note yourself). I find it hard to imagine how text could be clearer about making a distinction between gender role and biological sex without actually using those words. I'd be perfectly happy to ammend the existing text to include the additional modifiers role and biological rather than having just gender and sex as it stands (which are just standard non-technical terms). I can't see any difference between your view, the CCC and what stands in the text. To say that God is Father in no way implies he has biological sex. Rather, he is "pure spirit", the "origin" and "standard" "generating" both fatherhood and motherhood, and distinctively Father in a way no human father can be. The word Father conveys the generating, providing and authority ideals of fatherhood in the context of societies contemporary with the Bible, which no father has ever perfectly met but the heavenly Father himself. This is standard stuff in commentaries and theologies throughout history. I'm happy to provide some more sources. If you can provide a reliable and notable source that thinks differently, let's add it. If you can't supply one, I'll eventually remove the POV tag. If no evidence of any other view has been provided, there's no POV issue. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are still taking an extremely modernist view about human language as it applies to God. From the perspective of the Christian theological history, the analogical tradition asserts a very real disjunction, as well as the faint similitude, between what we assert and what is true of God. Woman is just as much in the image of God as man. And yes, God is the standard by which both human fathers and mothers are judged. So God is not male (male being a person or being with a given biological sex). I think the modifiers might make a difference. Andowney (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're in disagreement here either. I put the distinction between biological and social into the text to reinforce precisely the CCC's point that you are noting. I'm quite aware this is consistent with a long history of theologoical discussion. I can't understand why you think I assert some kind of biological male sexuality to the Father. I've never said any such thing on the talk page, in fact I've denied it several times. I can't think of anyone who does assert such a thing actually. But no such suggestion is made in the text of the article. Theologians were way ahead of modern discussion of gender. In theological thinking, masculine gender role is seen to be modelled on the Father, not vice versa, this is quite explicit in many writers. Modern writers sometimes tar the biblical writers with the same brush as the writers of scriptures other than the Bible. If you don't believe in God, it's obvious where his masculinity comes from in the Bible. To an atheist the CCC is crazy wishful thinking — "God not in man's image? Get real!" they have to say.

Jesus is another matter altogether, though. He is of biologically male sex, as well as providing a model of masculine gender role (Ephesians 5). In the article, Jesus is deliberately described in this fashion (but, you will note, the Father is not, nor should he be). Alastair Haines (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

2. If they names so "clearly" denote masculinity, why use the phrase "clearly"? It would be redundant. That alone makes it unnecessary and poor grammar and urges removal from the sentence. It would be inappropriate to state "The earth is clearly round" as a statement of fact--the correct phraseology for an encyclopedia would be "the earth is round." If we are dealing with facts, they speak for themselves. I would partially challenge your point nonetheless. If the language was viewed as analogical--and questions of gender weren't really raised--they are really not "clearly" making any claims regarding gender, at least not in the sense they were traditionally used.

Good, we agree Father and Son are clearly masculine. You are so sure they are masculine you suggest it is redundant to say it. (Mind you, in point one you go to great length to suggest theologians might not think so.) How many fathers are feminine or neuter? None. How many sons are feminine or neuter? None. How many bachelors are feminine or neuter? Well, very occasionally women are described this way because spinster sounds so awful. Are eunuchs masculine? Well, yes and no. Is 7 clearly prime? Yes. Is 13 clearly prime? Well, it is to me. Is 41 clearly prime? Hmmm. Is the pronoun he clearly masculine? Ha, ha! Now there's a dispute. Is ekeinos clearly masculine? Ah! Another dispute. Are father and son clearly masculine? Yes! Is the distinction meaningful? Yes!

I agree as a matter of interpretation, not as a matter of logical necessity. You didn't really address why the word "clearly" is not redundant if the matter is clear. And, yes, we agree that the pronoun he is masculine. I guess, to use my phraseology from above, I am saying usage does not necessarily mean assertion.

It's nice to hear you say this. Almost everything you say sounds close to what my own understanding of things is. We have a lot of sources in common. I think there's an element of talking at cross purposes. Perhaps we assume disagreements that are not actually there. More likely we disagree about more fundamental issues. Hence I'm easily satisfied with a masculine HS, but you are more sceptical on that point. For you, I think, the jury is still out, it's just a matter of time before someone works out the HS is transcendent in a way that cannot responsibly be considered masculine in any meaningful sense. For me, I accept the received verdict, I'm not calling for an appeal. I think there's no new evidence to support an appeal, and no evidence of an improper trial.

There is so much I want to respond to here but this will be a hectic weekend for me. I did want to clarify, however that I agree we seem to have many areas of agreement. But I wouldn't characterize my own position as "the jury is still out" any more so than your own. I think there is indirect scriptural support (and more support than opposition) and plenty of support from sacred tradition for the Holy Spirit as primarily imaged as feminine and maternal. What does distinguish me from many who argue from a feminist theological perspective is that I have humility before the received tradition. I think my case is better, but I recognize that the majority probably will not, and certainly, I recognize that I am arguing uphill and going against the grain to some degree. Having said that, I think many theologians from ages past, if they gave the issue consideration, would probably agree with the position I advance; but I do not think all, or even most, would (I tend to think many more of the Greek fathers would be supportive than the Latin and many of the Reformation thinkers as opposed to the scholastics - interesting that I am Catholic...). Still, though I have a view on the issue, it is at best an assertion about what is seen through glass darkly. Andowney (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the appropriateness of clear: if it was not clear, could we use the word clear? No. We can never use the word clear when things are unclear. The word clear would be redundant if there were something else in the text that made the same assertion—Father and Son are unquestionably clear references to masculine conceptions. Technically, redundancy is rare as true synonyms are rare, but unquestionably clear is just over the top or addressing the wrong issue. Clarity is not the point in question, masculinity is. So, F and S are unquestionably references to masculine ideas is OK. F and S are clear refs to masc ideas is OK. Putting both words or other words or multiplying modifiers to convey the point more forcefully would be redundant and POV (but probably accurate, lol).

In context, the reason I put clear into the text was more by way of contrast with HS. The "authorial intention", if you like, was something like: "It's hard to avoid masculine associations with F and S, so let's skip forward to the interesting issue, that needs a bit of patience to unpack." I think it's a more balanced way of communicating the relative weight of evidence than say, "F and S are masc., but the HS is less clearly so". Relatively speaking that'd be true, but it suggests more doubt than sources demonstrate. "F and S are clear masc., and the HS is apparantly so also" seems more fair.

Clear is also a one word excuse for presenting no involved argument that Father and Son are conceived of as masculine. It means "we state without proof that F and S are masc, because the reader is presumed to find no difficulty with this idea, and because there are no reliable, substantial or significant alternative view." Alastair Haines (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

3. This is still biased; please try to suggest some alternate phrasing. "...a clear indication of the authorial intention to unambiguously convey..." is way too strong and presumptuous. Are you aware of any World Book article concerning sacred religious texts where the author authoritatively tells his/her readers what an author intended to convey? I know we can find some sort of middle ground here to get us to a more NPOV while not minimizing the weight of the grammatical argument. Also, "the Gospel of John implies masculinity" needs to be changed. Let's try to find some middle ground on that one too. Suggestions?

Sorry, it appears to me that it is biased not to appreciate the words are quite specific and accurate descriptions, unless you have a source to suggest otherwise. Are you seriously suggesting authors don't have intentions? Are you seriously suggesting that published literary analysis does not consider such things? Are you seriously suggesting that authors select pronouns at random? Are you seriously suggesting that attributing authorial intention in pronoun selection is equally uncertain as attributing authorial intention regarding say Jew-Gentile relations or raising money for a mission to Spain (proposed by several commentators as Paul's intention in writing Romans)? Likewise, lexis and syntax that reduce or promote ambiguity are standard basic tools of interpretation. This falls at the lowest level of exegesis -- use of tenses, inflection and word order. They are almost mechanical (or instinctive) for translators. It would be presumptuous to suggest that authorial intention were opaque in such cases. Any attempt (say a tag) to say otherwise would need to be reverted as hopelessly OR and POV. You appear to be stuck on this point. John is not the only Koine text that does this. A text about Philip of Macedon's horse reveals it to be a mare, by using a feminine pronoun, breaking grammatical agreement with masculine hippos (horse). Other languages exist that do similar things. It's not my job to explain why you can't find reliable sources that argue contrary to the representative source quoted in the text. It's your job to find a source for another opinion. If you find one, add it, and remove clear. Scholars know too much about language and about Greek to be confused about this point, however. The very fact that you question its clarity shows it needs to be asserted. You can rest assured, Grudem knows Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and English (and, I think, Latin and German as well).

I believe I asked you some time ago whether we might add "it is traditionally asserted" preceding "a clear intention" and you indicated that such language would be unnecessary because the position was so obviously the traditional one. So why "clear" and "unambiguously." My biggest problem here is that you are making a step from the author's usage to the author making a theological claim relevant to a very modern/postmodern discussion of gender. Here's how you might look at what where I see the step: Let's say the gospel's author wants to make clear that the Holy Spirit is personal rather than impersonal. Well, if the neuter is inadequate to the task you have either masculine or feminine. So the author goes with the masculine, given that in surrounding passages the HS is being identified with the Paraclete (which is grammatically masculine). You can see from here how the author may have very well have made a choice to use the grammatically masculine so as to simply assert personality, etc. with no regard whatsoever to the Spirit's gender. By the way, can we remove clear and unambiguously please? Here is what you requested as the prerequisite; though we are of quite different theological persuasions, I know that Dan Wallace (Dallas Seminary) is one of the most highly regarded of evangelical NT scholars in the US. Here is his take: http://www.ibr-bbr.org/IBRBulletin/BBR_2003/BBR_2003a_05_Wallace_HolySpirit.htm - and he doesn't even think that the use of the masculine should be used to argue for the personality of the Spirit, let alone the issue of the Spirit's gender! Hopefully, we have reached some consensus on this at last. Andowney (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already removed clearly, I only added it by accident because I thought it may have been removed according to your last point, but had the locations mixed up. (See my comments above for why I had clear for F and S but not for HS in my edition of this article.) Unambiguously I need to think about, Wallace certainly puts a case for an alternative reading, but in that case he notes dozens of scholars who claim the masculine pronoun for the HS. He cites none in support of his own position.

I'm glad you found the Wallace article, because I profoundly agree with him. Both the personality of the Spirit (which Wallace discusses) and his gender (which Wallace only notes he believes to be masculine in passing) are established by more lengthy and substantial considerations of all canonical books. I said as much in earlier responses (found because of the layout of this talk page in the text below).

I'm thrilled to learn about Wallace's article, because now I know yet another writer who believes in a masculine HS for the right reasons, but this presents problems. Wallace is a writer who believes in a masculine HS (though he doesn't give an argument for this and he's a linguist more than exegete or theologian), he just points out that everyone argues from John and other passages and he's not satisfied with those on linguistic grounds. Interestingly, I deliberately chose the passage from John that I did, because my own personal assessment was that this was the strongest of the cases, which is also how Wallace describes it. Interestingly, I also made a point of noting the relevance of trinitarian theology to full treatment of this topic.

But what do we do? Now, strictly speaking, if a large part of Syrian Orthodoxy believing a feminine HS is not sufficiently notable to have at the top of the Christian section (and it's not), it'd be pretty unfair to place Wallace' lone view there, despite the fact that I agree with him. It'd also be strange to single him out since he does accept classic Christian trinitarianism and masculinity of the three persons of the Godhead.

I'm willing, however, to take a risk and you, me and Wallace can change this article without other support. We can add that the Holy Spirit impregnating Mary is a teaching of scripture attributing masculine gender role to him, noted in the Apostle's creed (which is accepted by Christians to this day). Additionally, nearly all theologians, exegetes and linguists, who address the question, argue from the Greek of the New Testament that the Holy Spirit's masculine gender role is marked grammatically. A conservative Christian Greek scholar has argued the grammatical argument is not as strong as the broader conceptual arguments.

I think we need to discuss before acting, because Wallace is only one source, and he intends neither to overturn doctrines of personhood or masculinity of the HS, just to redirect focus to the best arguments for them. Wallace actually confirms everything in the article down to the end of the Bible quotes, except for his own opinion. His exhaustive literature review is like reading what we have, only for 20 pages! If we are to include him, it can't be in order to overturn the summary review we already have, which is precisely what he gives himself! [A.H.]

4. I think you misunderstood. My emphasis here was on the phrase the New Testament...refers but the addition of in the Gospel of John clears this up.

Actually, sorry to spoil aparant agreement, I think the NT implies a masculine HS in other passages also. It is merely less direct to interpretation in those passages. It would be open to dispute so I don't quote the relevant passages. John is so clear it easily suffices to make the point. Once this is observed, the other passages follow naturally. "Conceived of the Holy Ghost" is an expression of masculine gender role for the HS articulated in creeds weekly around the world in Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant churches every week. To limit masculine gender role implication to John alone is therefore Weasling, as testified by maybe millions weekly. So NT simpliciter is what I will defend as appropriately encyclopedic for the text.

Wrong on this one! Conceived of the Holy Ghost can only be masculine if one is interpreting this in anything other than an analogical fashion. I know Catholics and the Orthodox do not, I'm familiar enough with their theological scholarship and official teachings. Maybe some Protestant churches have this conception, but I'm not sure which ones. In fact, the creed actually says literally "being made flesh out of the Holy Spirit," without any statement regarding "conception." (And just for fun, I note that the Creed applies the gender-inclusive anthropos, rather than masculine aner, to Jesus immediately following this...) Andowney (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually anthropos is only relatively more gender-inclusive than adelphoi (see The Ambiguity of Anthropos). I'll check the Greek of Matthew, Luke and the creeds. I've checked the originals and they are all clear that the HS is the active divine agent in Mary's pregnancy. Matthew doesn't even use a verb, just a preposition, ek. Are you seriously suggesting impregnating women is not a masculine role? Please provide a source for this.

By the way, I've just discovered something you probably know well already, Liturgiam Authenticam, which is very clear about the damage gender-neutral language prescription can do to authentic meaning. It has a specific statement regarding the truth of received gender marking regarding language for God and for each person of the trinity in paragraph 30. Yet again I find myself agreeing with the Roman Catholic authorities, and applaud them for being way ahead of protestants in addressing an issue.

5. Are you saying the Holy Spirit is male?

Yes, without doubt. The Bible says much that bears on the issue. The full argument would take a journal article to outline. Perhaps I should write one, however, John on its own is clear enough and Grudem presents the case clearly enough for the context of this article. I particularly appreciate attempts to push the boundaries though, because discovering the weaknesses in such arguments is helpful to reinforcing the history of interpretation -- a male HS. This is one reason most treatments consider hypothetical alternatives. As I noted above, imagine John knew the Spirit to be feminine, he would not choose a grammatically and factually incorrect masculine pronoun. Imagine John knew the Spirit to be neither m or f, ditto. Imagine John didn't know anything about the gender of the Spirit, ditto. After eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely is the truth (Arthur Conan Doyle). But a masculine HS is not even unlikely. He brings Mary to conception and has authority (with respect to the church) equal to two masculine co-partners in the trinity. The only argument I can see for a feminine HS, in biblical theological terms, would be her submission to the masculine Father and Son. But submission alone does not imply feminine, rather feminine implies submission.

6. I addressed this above but I hasten to add that I am not aware of any mainstream Christian who believe the Holy Spirit to be either male or female, which are biological terms. Let's make sure we are distinguishing sex and gender. Gregory of Nazianzus in the the Third Theological Oration argues that Father indicates nothing of marriage, or pregnancy, etc., which we associate with sex; rather it is metaphorical, parental, indicating a relation of origin. Still, let's try to work on re-phrasing.

Excellent, we agree. Is that what this is all about? I completely agree with the CCC (I disagree with JPII, but that's another matter). Neither God, who is trinity, nor the Father nor the Spirit can have male biological sex predicated to them. This is precluded by many scriptures refering to spirituality and physicality. However, Jesus is both man and God and has both biological male sex as well as masculine gender roles. Likewise, his God and Father has masculine roles and so too the Spirit. I can imagine things being different. I'd kind of like a feminine person in the trinity for various philosophical reasons, however I personally try to grasp and follow the intention of the original texts. (They are more reliable than my poor brain regarding God and his nature.)

In discussion of such things, I find no difficulty in conversation with people who accept only parts of the Bible or none of it. I only ever find difficulty with people who are personally committed to the whole of the Bible as being true, yet disagree with the idea of masculine gender role for God. Mostly I find these people think submission is for lesser beings, and so the clear biblical picture of woman in submission to man is abhorant to them. Quite right too, if submission is inferiority. (I am glad none of these people have ever been my boss, because I would find their presumption of superiority exceedingly offensive.) Of course, nobody thinks the President of the US is ever the best person for the job, nor superior to any other citizen in any way whatsoever. Rather, it is an office of public service, i.e. servanthood. So too with the Lord of the Gospel who both serves and leads with his redemptive death. Interestingly, even Jesus is eternally in submission to his Father (1 Cor 11 and 15 and Philippians 2), with no subordination of essence, only of role -- the economic trinity.

7. He has to be used in Latin because Deus is masculine and the Catholic Church, of course, goes with tradition. But I have above quoted John Paul II referencing the issue and I can get you a quote from our current pope which draws parallels between Mary and the Spirit, the latter as the primordial feminine in the Godhead.Andowney (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If Popes in the future are clear on this, or if they already have become clear on this, by virtue of being Pope their opinions are notable at Wiki. Of course I will disagree with them, I follow no denomination, only the Bible. But that's just me. This is a Wiki article, so I will actually fight to have their position retained on the page. I expect the same courtesy of others though, the position currently standing in the article falls well short of the Alastair Haines version of the issues, it is merely the currently unanimous consensus of all notable mainstream theologians, with the possible exception of JPII and maybe the current pope.

Were I a Catholic, I would be particularly interested in pursuing the implications of doctrines regarding Mary for gender issues. However, it was the Gnostics who said, "Surely Mary did not conceive of the HS -- woman does not conceive of woman."

Despite not being a Catholic, I have cited Catholicism as representative of Christianity's high view of women in various articles at Wiki. If people are to accuse Christians of misogyny, which is ridiculous, they can jolly well leave out the Catholic church from such slander. If there is misogyny in Catholicism, there is in any large organization, but it is a consequence of universal sin, not of Catholic doctrines per se. I do think historical Christianity in general, not Catholicism alone, shows a tendency towards fear of sexuality. Again, this is human failing within institutions, imo, not due to the Bible's teaching which seems positive, considerate, compassionate but, most importantly, clear. I'll never forget a sermon where the preacher asked, "can you imagine God looking down with surprise thinking, 'I never thought they'd do that'"? Alastair Haines (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Since a few days have passed with no further comment, I've removed the POV tag. I'm not presuming the dispute is settled, I simply discovered, while checking policy for dispute resolution procedures that, "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." My own personal protocol is to 1. attempt to remedy POV articles by adding reliable sources, or 2. note my concern on a talk page, if it goes unanswered, only then do I add a tag. No sources, no tag. Any discussion, no tag until last resort. But that's just me.

At this stage, no sources have been offered for any alternative opinions, other than what is already in the article. So I don't think we're at a "last resort" stage. Perhaps, if a source is found, and then added in a manner that I consider gives it undue weight, it'll be me that might finally opt for the "last resort". I can't see that happening because Andowney seems to be a reasonable person, and also, I simply don't expect any source is going to be found in the near future, 'cause I don't think they exist. Mind you, lots and lots of things exist that I wouldn't have expected. I love surprises. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this Judaism?

I'm adding a citation request to the following.

• "The majority of objects related to worship in Judaism such as the Torah are grammatically feminine."

I think the issue here is that English is not Hebrew. In English, worship can mean something like, "people, things, roles or ideas involved in meetings of religious communities." However, in the Tanakh, worship is a central concept and where it has "objects" this is an explicit matter of concern. I can hardly think of anything more objectionable to the Tanakh or those who provide midrash than the suggestion that Judaism has "objects" associated with its "worship".

Anticipating another issue related to the sentence above, I can't say (but would like to know) how modern Hebrew handles personal/impersonal categories. In biblical Hebrew, scholastic consensus is that grammatical feminine inflection is sometimes used to resolve any ambiguity towards the impersonal, where masculine grammatical inflection resolves towards the personal. In other words, as with English and most languages that mark gender, the feminine grammatical gender is the more significant marker, it adds information, since masculine grammatical gender is merely the default. Feminine grammatical genders are more properly non-masculine or non-personal, when not simply expressing syntactic agreement. Masculine genders, on the other hand, are non-impersonal, but not non-feminine. Discrimination against the masculine in this way is almost universal in languages with three or fewer noun-classes (impers / pers systems like Sumerian are the main exception).

Anyway, this article is about the natural gender of God (semantics), not about grammatical gender (syntax), except in the contexts where syntax actually helps us resolve semantic intention regarding natural gender. So, on two counts, the above sentence is rather infelicitous -- it draws in things that cannot be substituted for God in Judaism, and invokes an invalid argument from syntax.

PS On second thoughts, I'm simply removing this sentence, since no reliable source will be found to support it. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Exploring a feminine Holy Spirit

Thanks for your openness Andowney. On a personal level, I'm really open to people exploring the idea of a feminine HS. "All things are possible with God." This means extraordinary things like the second person of the Trinity taking flesh and being authentically human, despite a prior eternity of being pure spirit. What could be more natural than a feminine eternal divine person expressing such sovereign, free and powerful femininity by supernaturally intervening in the life of a virgin to bring her to and through a successful pregnancy? Why should conception require male and female at the divine level? Couldn't this be the glory of the feminine, perhaps without which the Father would never have been creator? Or, better still, masculine and feminine have different ways of creating, limited in the human sphere by the mutual dependency of sexual reproduction; but why such restriction on the godhead, who should not be bound by such sexual conceptions of creative activity (as pagan gods notoriously are, made in our image as they also are).

It's hard to know what "gender" means with the Trinity of Christianity. The masculinity of Jesus now is one of the few graspable things. Whatever divine gender means, it is definitive of human gender in a way that can't be reversed. But still, is woman's exclusive right to conceive, carry and bear children the reflection of a higher thing—that indeed woman's role carried out in a material realm, reflects distinctively a feminine principle within God and contributes this aspect of God's image to humanity as image-bearer. Does Mary's manless conception show the sovereign power of a divine feminine that needs no man to bring things to be, that were not before she chose that they should be. Is the incarnation the ultimate demonstration that the divine feminine creates ex nihilo just as the masculine reveleation is understood to do.

If the human feminine is in God's image (and it is), is it especially the person and work of the HS that is the model on which it was primarily formed? The intimacy of the Spirit with the other persons, the willing participation in the plans of the other persons, and the mediatorial and communicative functions of the spirit, especially advocacy, appear to reflect principles widely seen in feminine gender roles across the world.

What on earth is gender? If it's not in God, how can it be part of the Imago Dei? Perhaps it is like other biological functions we do not suppose to be reflections of the Image, but rather characteristics of our creatureliness. But yet, Genesis has male and female he created them in direct parallel with in the image of God he created them. It is rather selective exegesis not to accept parallelism in these verses, while considering it normal in the Hebrew Bible (and other Semitic literature).

So, what if gender really is an integral part of being in God's image, does this mean gender is a category that first finds its reality in God? Does gender as a category work by dividing the divine persons within themselves or among themselves? Both proposals have been made by the earliest of theologians (and in religions other than the one true religion of Moses and Jesus—Judaism). Is it possible gender in the Trinity operates in a different way to within persons or among them? Is it more a division of the kinds of manners in which they relate to one-another primarily and with creation derivatively? Is division the fundamental reality of gender, or would complementarity be a better picture—the two are mutually interdependent? Say transcendence and imminence are the "genders" of divine relating—the two are "one spirit" as man and wife are "one flesh". Father, Son and Spirit are each transcendent and imminent because both genders are requisite for true integrity of personhood. However, Father is more characteristically transcendent, where Spirit is more imminent and so, perhaps, it is with human fathers and mothers (at least in physical conception and nursing of infants).

Do we misunderstand gender to press it too far to the point of exclusive biological connection. As the Father himself can adopt imminence with all the tenderness of a perfect mother, so the ultimately intimate indwelling Spirit can also rise to transcendent and authoritative conviction of sin and judgement. A young man is to heed his mother's counsel in becoming a truly wise man fearing God.

How can theologically uninformed students of gender ever hope to uncover the truth by surveys and experiments? Gender is epiphenomenal, real, but not material. How can we discover theological reality outside revelation that comes from the Theos? If we draw no line around the canon, we will be mislead; if we exclude genuine revelation, we may miss essential doctrine. And then, our conclusions in theology are always corrupted by our own sin and incompetance, even if we have the right doctrinal basis. There are things that can be given, but not comprehensively received. Other things may not be given to us, true though they are. Finally, our capacity to understand, to "know" in a biblical sense, is finite. How far should we press before admitting our limitations?

I'm writing all the above just by way of encouragement. I sense your commitment to revelation and I think that is the main thing. Asking questions and challenging human doctrines derived from revelation, not revelation themselves, is a great way to push oneself to depending more heavily on scripture, prayer, obedience and love. To depend on scripture is to depend on God (if we are correct to believe God is there and that he has spoken). Although I believe there is only one truth, and although I believe scripture informs us of much regarding gender, I think the processes are as important as the results. As you say, now it is "through a glass darkly" then it will be "face to face".

But what do we say at Wiki? Christian view: "through a glass darkly" (Paul as understood by AH and AD)? I think here we must simply place the dark understanding of the scholars to this point, and leave the question quickly. If people want to know more, they should go to church and join the collective struggle to wrestle for as much grace of revelation as we can find as we turn to God's word together. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum, Alastair. Ilkali (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can't follow the discussion, feel free to stay out of it Ilkali.

What do your sources say about perichoresis? Alastair Haines (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Catholic liturgy

Just a note on reverting traditional as applied to Catholic reference to God. This usage is more than tradtional, it is also current, and even a matter of forward looking policy. Since the Catholic policy in Liturgiam Authenticam also reflects the best contemporary linguistics, it seems unlikely this will be revoked in the forseeable future. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No objection to removing "traditional". However, since you have demanded talk page consensus for removing the following text, I would like to discuss it: "This makes it clear that God has masculine gender role, rather than male biological sex; as indicated by the pronoun He in the official English translation of Ille in the Latin original."

In the face of actual content saying that God transcends gender, there is no significance to the gender of pronouns in a language lacking gender-neutral pronouns. Pointing out that Catholic teaching refers to God as masculine is enough. There's no need to say it makes anything clear.

Here is the full text of that section of the catechism. I think it's clear that this isn't just about biological sex; it's saying God transcends all kinds of gender.

By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.

--Alynna (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary Alynna, the text explains, very precisely, that it is the role of fatherhood that the "language of faith" understands as it "draws on the human experience of parents". Specifically this role involves "first origin", "transcendent authority", "goodness and loving care for all his children". These are the characteristics understood of fatherhood from human experience. The Catechism goes on to explain that with God, the Bible also sometimes expresses his loving parenthood in term understood from the role of motherhood. Specifically, it contrasts this with fatherhood as "immanence" and "intimacy" rather than "transcendence" and "authority". Since human fathers are also experienced as intimate, and mothers as authoritative during childhood, it is hardly surprising that the Catechism considers it possible for us to grasp that God also is capable of reflecting both roles. However, just as the role of fatherhood is understood as distinct from motherhood, especially in authority, so too God's role towards his children involves love which features authority. He is thus understood as Father rather than Mother, which he is never called in scripture (nor the Catechism). He transcends the role of human fathers to be sure, and is not modeled on them, but they on Him. But it is precisely the distinction of role which is understood in calling God Father.

The introduction of God as transcendent in a second way follows the Catechism's observation that although God's relationship with us is inferred from human parenting, it does not follow that he is the copy of the human pattern, rather the human is patterned on the divine, and fallible and disfigured at that. In whatever sense God is Father, he is so more than any human father. It is not by virtue of a male sexual role that he is Father. In fact, God is more masculine than any man. Fatherhood and masculinity are patterned on God, not vice versa.

If the subject interests you, Vernard Eller's The language of Canaan and the grammar of feminism covers this kind of thinking quite comprehensively. It's not new by a long way. The Catechism's treatment of it, though, is highly compressed. Liturgiam Authenticam deals with it in somewhat more detail. You're really pressing way too hard to extrapolate "transcends the human distinction between the sexes" backwards to deconstruct the clear gender role distinctions with which the paragraph begins. Such a reading clashes badly with the conclusion also—God is Father as no man can be father. It's all pure masculine stuff there. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps God is a prisoner of language. Tagalog (language os the Philippines, and I think one of the 20 most widely spoken languages on earth) doesn't have male and female pronouns - everyone is "siya", irrespective of what they're wearing. Ditto Chinese and many other Asian languages - which means, I guess, that most people in the world can't distinguish, linguistically, between a male or female God. Not don't, but can't.

So we should at least consider the possibility that the gender of god is a question that can only arise in languages like Hebrew and English.

This is an appallingly bad article, by the way. Probably better just to delete it.

PiCo (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on both points—grammatical gender often says little about natural gender, and the article is awful.

However, your point addresses directly what I've heard the Vatican saying in several publications.

In Bahasa Indonesia, "God" is either Allah or Tuhan, neither has grammatical gender, but Tuhan is a fuller form of tuan (master) rather than nyonya (mistress). This is analogous to calling God Father rather than Mother. It is, of course, the role, rather than the biology that is significant. In fact, Allah Bapa, Putra, dan Roh Kudus is the Indonesian form of the trinitarian formula. The roles of Father and Son are expressed with words used for masculine referents.

Interestingly, Indonesian draws on many languages to build its vocabulary. So deva and devi are words for "god" and "goddess" drawn from Sanskrit and suited to the more sexual pantheon of Hinduism. In that pantheon, sexual characteristics of gods and goddesses are sometimes quite explicit. It is quite distinctive of monotheism that sexual metaphors are not used of God's role as creator, where many polytheistic mythologies explain the genesis of the world via extrapolations of copulation of Sky Father and Earth Mother or such like.

I don't know about Chinese dialects, but given the intricate way Asian languages can often specify, by specific words, older siblings rather than younger ones and maternal relatives rather than paternal ones, I'd be surprised if there were no relationship words that imply masculinity. It is neither pronouns, nor sexual characteristics that are the main issue in this article, though, it is gender role of God or gods, not biological sex of God or gods.

This gender role is obviously rather more elevated than questions like "who takes out the garbage", "who risks his life when needed for the community", "who votes and who rules". However, it is quite possible that God really exists, and that masculine gender ideally actually reflects part of what God is towards his creation. It is quite possible that Jesus was both God and man, and, if he was, true masculinity would have its pattern on him.

It is also quite possible that there's no God, and that Jesus was deluded or misinterpreted by those who knew him. But the point is, this article is aimed at a brief overview of the gender of divinity across some major religions. It would appear that Jews and Christians are the only ones who feel the masculinity of God to be sufficiently clear in their scriptures that they defend it. It would appear Muslims are particular in denying gender can be predicated on God. Sikhs, likewise, are happy to consider any masculine reference, matephorical or grammatical, to be conventional. Mormons have an "open godhead". Hindus, of course, have distinctly feminine and masculine deities, sexed as well as gendered.

Although this article needs an introduction that actually explains rather than assumes the question it addresses, and although specific sections actually need considerable work, I noticed that there were articles in the popular press on this very topic recently in the UK.

So, I think this article is worth having ... and improving. I enjoyed checking out the Hindu material, though that can be expanded. Little by little, as a pretty low priority, I think this article can build. I've been working with the Jains on their articles recently, and hope they'll be able to contribute here eventually. Improvement is just a matter of time. I've already learned a lot from interacting with this namespace. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

New lead (14/06/08)

Alastair, your new version of the lead ([1]):

1. is far too long.
2. reads like an essay, intended to impress rather than to inform.
3. contains entire paragraphs that make no direct reference to gender!

My preference would be to restore the version by Abstract ([2]), at least until your reasons for replacing it can be discussed. Ilkali (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have restored it ... really Alastair that was, in general, quite unrelated to the topic. Abtract (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And, now that you have put it in again, I see that it is probably plagiarism but sadly I do not have the tools to check that. Maybe someone else can ... Abtract (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in here Abtract, nice to have you around. A few replies to Ilkali first:

1. The text I've added is not a lead, it is a discussion of background basics that seem to be less well understood in the general community than I realised.
2. Were it a lead, it would be too long, what it replaced was too short, not summary form, OR, POV and various other issues.
3. As text for the article, obviously some documentation of serious study of religion is required, since fly-by editors seem to assume a range of things based on their own thoughts and experience rather than actual familiarity with any literature.
4. As for "impress rather than inform", I would suggest every sentence includes verifiable content. Are animism and polytheism the same? What are the differences? How are these signficant in relation to gender? What disciplines have produced scholarly material on religion? What theories exist? What studies have been done? Feel free to assume bad faith and a desire to impress. You're wrong, but I'll not try to disprove you, how could I? I'm not interested in impressing Wiki editors, I'm interested in Wiki editors taking articles seriously, especially if they are working outside their field (which is most of us, most of the time).
5. As for relevance, simply because we do not see logical dependencies, we cannot conclude these do not exist. I happen to know that logical dependencies have been proposed between the features of religion mentioned and the concepts of God and gender. Gender is not the only concept being discussed in this article. The concept of God is even more foundational. Concepts of gender are pretty much universally consistent across cultures. On the other hand, concepts of the metaphysical world, however, are quite distinctly different across cultures. These things are discussed in a lot of literature.

My suggestion would be that instead of jumping to conclusions about what motivated the text I provided, you might like to consider trying to source contrary opinions (though you'd be wasting time), or better still, test out if you can source it. That, you will find, if you try it, will actually be quite easy to do, just from google searches alone.

If you care to know the motive, it is simple, I'm just impatient with people presuming they know all about gods and God in all cultures and all analysis and can summarize the subject simply, without consulting sources. A constructive way forward is to actually provide some of the key concepts and issues, so people can start discussing those. If people are not actually up to doing any research, there's a little bit of material at Origin of religion.

Material relevant to academic cross-cultural work on God sufficient to progress to work on gender restored to article. POV, OR lead (as friendly and common sense as it is) removed. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

PS the above was written before I saw Abtact's second post. Thanks for the complement that it looks like plagiarism, i.e. it looks like it could have come from a published source. It isn't plagiarism, but plagiarism can only ever be proved, it can't be disproved, so I won't try to disprove it. Were I testing for plagiarism, I'd take short distinctive phrases and use google to test for matches. Most people are too lazy to copy text from books, they merely cut and paste from the internet.

The reason it looks like plagiarism is because what I have written does, in fact, come from years of reading books on these kinds of subjects. For all I know, some of my phrases may indeed be simply memories of bits and pieces I've read. But it also looks like plagiarism because it does sound plausible (because it is). It's not an essay seeking to pursuade of any POV, it's simply logical, neutral progression of ideas establishing the relationship between different points of view on supreme supernatural beings and how this may relate to gender.

The best argument against it being plagiarism is that it is too conveniently related to gender. It addresses the topic so closely, that were I to put it in quotes and name an out of print source for it, one could suspect I was cheating, because it would be too good to be true.

Anyway, I'm tired of being treated as though I have to prove good faith. If I think something I post is relevant, I will revert back to it, unless a polite and good case is made for something else. Criticisms of fact are welcome, endless scepticism, quibbles over style, and accusations of bad faith are not. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"The reason it looks like plagiarism is because what I have written does, in fact, come from years of reading books on these kinds of subjects". Having had more experience with you, I don't think it's plagiarism. But I think that if somebody got that impression, it would be because it has limited relevance to the topic - as though you looked for suitable text to copy and eventually settled on something only vaguely related.

"Anyway, I'm tired of being treated as though I have to prove good faith". This from someone who freely accuses others of trolling?

"If I think something I post is relevant, I will revert back to it, unless a polite and good case is made for something else". This is nothing less than a declaration that you will wage edit wars whenever anyone changes text you've written. That attitude is why you are the subject of an AN/I. When you introduce text, others must convince you it is bad before you will permit its removal. When others introduce text, they must convince you it is good before you will permit its inclusion. And at every stage, those who disagree with you must be faultlessly polite or you will immediately shut down discussion and resume edit warring. Does this sound like healthy collaboration? Ilkali (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Ilkali, what a surprise.

Perhaps I should just delete them as inappropriate, like you do?

The reason I don't is because they continue to prove your trolling.

And yes, I declare that I will not tolerate those who attempt to edit war with me.

Contribute or be ignored. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"More personal attacks from Ilkali, what a surprise". Where did I personally attack you? The most I have done is criticised your attitude to editing, which is an entirely appropriate topic for discussion.

"Perhaps I should just delete them as inappropriate, like you do?". How many people now have agreed that your above postings do not belong here? Four, five? Against one? This question is important: Are you still refusing to take it to user talk pages? Ilkali (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

At last Ilkali admits it. "The most I have done is criticised your attitude to editing." Self confession of personal attack. None of us can know anyone else's attitude. It is arrogant, presumptuous and rude to do so. If, however, like you, someone admits it, then we can know. Thank you for explaining why you behave like a troll. You are arrogant enough to presume both the ability to read minds and the right to act in judgement on that. Case closed. Time for you to change. There is no progress to be had here until you take responsibility for your slander and apologize. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"None of us can know anyone else's attitude". Sure we can. You reveal your attitude with how you act and what you say. When you treat an article as your own personal property, insisting that the burden to justify any change is always on your opponent and that you are the sole judge of their arguments, you reveal an attitude that is poisonous to Wikipedia. Not only that, but your hypocrisy is astonishing. In this very comment, you accuse me of slander in the same breath as calling me an arrogant troll! If I challenge you to reconcile the two, will you ignore it in exactly the way you ignored my above question about your off-topic postings? Ilkali (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised that my nice little lead did not gain your approval Alastair but now that I read the above I guess you are of the intractible kind ... I will ask for help from independent editors since I am done edit warring, it's a mug's game. Abtract (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I did like many things about your contribution, in some ways it said almost exactly what I would like it to say. The only problem was that I don't actually know whether it was true or not. For example, at the time you wrote it, the Sikhism section claimed gender neutrality of God in that religion also, which would have made your lead false. However, it turns out that this view was simply original research. But the fact remains that your lead made sweeping statements, that may be true, but did not accurately summarise the article.

You're wrong about me being intractible, but you're right to admit that you're only guessing. You're also right about edit warring, I don't do it either. Ilkali is the only edit warrer I can recall in two years at this page, which is why he has three warnings for it on his talk page, and an outstanding complaint against his incivility. It's easy to understand, he's new. It's the slander that's unacceptable—hiding his unwillingness to accept error by accusing others of it. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"You're also right about edit warring, I don't do it either". You don't? You don't continually revert articles to versions that you prefer?

"Ilkali is the only edit warrer I can recall in two years at this page, which is why he has three warnings for it on his talk page". Warnings from someone with no authority to warn! I could leave a hundred warnings on your talk page and it wouldn't mean any less. And how could I have edit warred without someone to war with?

"and an outstanding complaint against his incivility". Also made by you. And the only comment made on it by an outside party agreed with me. It almost seems like you're being deliberately dishonest here, Alastair! Ilkali (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

rfc

A quick glance at the above will demonstrate the problem. Abtract (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is that two editors, without citing a single source relevant to God, gender or comparative religion, are making assertions about the motives and character of another editor.

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• No personal attacks

Alastair Haines (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Alastair - while I don't think either of these leads is really spectacular, I have to say that the two line version you've been advocating doesn't live up to wikipedia standards. to my mind, a good lead should give a nice picture of (a) what the topic is and (b) why it's worthy of notice by an encyclopedia. your version doesn't do either, whereas the current version marginally does (a). plus, I do think you get off onto tangents (interesting though I find them) that are outside the scope of the gender of god - focus is important. my two cents... --Ludwigs2 03:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I suggest that this version of the lead "The gender of God has historically been considered male by most of the world's religions with the major exception of Islam, which teaches that God is gender neutral. Some, mainly modern, thinkers have posited a female God. Other, more complex, views have also been argued." is more useful and more in line with the mos than this one "God or gods are a central feature of many religions. These religions have a range of views regarding the gender of their divinities." Views from other editors would be appreciated. Abtract (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the former could be tweaked a little in the 'gender has been considered male' part, to make clear that we're identifying the gender rather than predicating about it, but I think it's better overall. Ilkali (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to tweak away; I just intended it to be a helpful start point for what will eventually become a much better lead. Sadly everyone doesn't see it that way. Abtract (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather biased towards monotheism, don't you think? Confined to that context, I think it gives undue weight to the "female God" position; goddesses are well documented in polytheism, but a single, female god is pretty much a fringe position. Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bear in mind though that the topic is "Gender of God". Abtract (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all biased toward monotheism. It is inclusive of all religions that incorporate God, whether they be monotheistic, henotheistic, etc. For the reason Abtract pointed out, this is exactly the correct level of focus. Ilkali (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of essay

I suggest that this section Gender of God#Comparative religion is mainly a rambling, unreferenced, off-topic, POV and OR essay which should be removed from the article. Other views would be appreciated. Abtract (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And I propose that people ignorant of the topic area refrain from posting rude comments based on ignorance. I shall now insist that the section be expanded and every word retained.

Some constructive criticism:

1. learn how make your own comments constructive, be specific; and
2. learn how to be collaborative and work with others, offer assistance rather than provocative comments.

Essay is a particularly unhelpful word to use, since essays have a specific meaning at Wiki because they are unencyclopedic. The essence of an essay is it seeks to pursuade of a point, as such it fails to be encyclopedic as it is not written from the NPOV.

I am a little tired of having to teach basics to people who make no constructive contributions of content, just empty and rude opinions.

Sources and content are welcome, opinions, at this stage are not. Keep those for essays. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I do not think the information in the essay is the information people want when they visit this page. Ilkali (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a perfect example of opinion with no content Ilkali. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Deadline

Ilkali and Abtract have one week from the datestamp of this post to remove all inappropriate comments, namely slander personally attacking my motives and character, before I will strike it all out, as per policy for inappropriate comments. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning

First warning against Abtact for edit warring—placing an unreferenced tag on referenced text—edit diffs are available in the article history. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

second warning

Did the Roman Empire adopt Christianity under Constantine? Yes. Is anything provided so a reader can verify this? Yes, a whole article online full of reliable sources. Tag is inappropriate.

According to tagging policy, they are a matter of last resort. Since you have provided no meaningful challenge to any statement made in the text, we haven't even started, let alone reached the stage of last resort.

Insisting on tagging without seriously engaging with text is edit warring. Second warning noted. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have had a good look through the edit history and Alastair seems not to have allowed any edits other than his own to stand (I went back a month before I got bored with looking at his rather sad history). Clearly he is unable to consider views other than his own and he acts in a particularly aggresive, nasty and bullying way to achieve his ends, some admin action is needed here. Abtract (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct that my text at this page is rarely changed. Your assessment of why is way out.

You have one week to prove your accusation, after which I remove it, as slander. Alastair Haines (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

rfc2

note - an rfc was opened and, although no-one commented from the religion project, User:Alastair Haines was blocked as a result; see below:

It is proving impossible to discuss improvements with one editor who seems to own this article. He hasn't allowed any edits but his to stand for at least a month (unless I missed one); he acts like a bully insisting on adding lengthy unreferenced essays that have only limited relevance to the topic, and a lead which doesn't even mention the topic.Abtract (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's impossible to discuss improvements with two people who offer no engagement with the meaning of text, but only speculations about style and my character, predominently the latter. I have repeatedly invited constructive contribution, and specified what and how -- write up sourced text on Hinuism, Sikhism, Islam or Mormonism -- but these have been ignored. In fact, I'm the only one who's contributed anything new to the article in this time.

It's simple lads, if you want to contribute, there are missing religions, and underdeveloped ones, get in there and contribute. If you want to debate existing text, that's fine too, but you actually need a source or an argument if that's what you want to do. It's not the number of editors, nor their personal qualities that decides what text goes into articles, it's sources and clarity of thinking.

Ironically, when all this started, both the Hindu and Sikhism sections were misleading. I've accepted them for more than a year, but when I checked the sources, I found they are not the gender-neutral ideologies that the previous text suggested. Sources rule Wiki, not editors. One source beats any number of editors, Wiki is not a talk-fest, it's a read-a-thon.

Just precisely which sourced material can't you get into the article? Just precisely which sourced material have I removed?

Six days to apologize for your slander, before it is removed, according to policy, as it deserves.

Stop wasting everyone's time and try adding sourced text to Wiki, there's a ton of space, even in this article.

Alastair Haines (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems I'm the first outsider to respond to the RfC. To my mind, there are at least two distinct issues. The first is that Alastair Haines seems to be talking past Ilkali and Abtract, and vice versa. Alastair seems not to care much about politeness or being encouraging, and has adopted an arrogant and peremptory tone. If he genuinely desires others to contribute, as he writes, then he's not behaving in a way that is likely to have that desire fulfilled. Based on his contributions and his words on the talk page, Alastair seems focused on making the article something that will give readers a foundation in the research that underlies the matter of a gender of God--not an essay in the WP sense, but something out of a text book or journal article. It appears that he has a vision of how readers' misconceptions or unconscious biases due to their Western perspective might be corrected, and while this vision is commendable (if an encyclopedia is to enlighten), it is, in its current instantiation, at odds with the overwhelming consensus on the style of WP articles. This is all to say that the content of Alastair's contributions can be faulted pretty much only for lacking references, but the architecture of the article suffers from how it is presented in its current state.

Ilkali and Abtract do not claim the expertise that Alastair apparently has, and are focused principally on the style and architecture of the article, and bringing it in line with what is typical for WP articles. They are also appropriately concerned about the lack of references in what is now in the "Comparative Religion" section. I find almost no fault with Abtract's edits, although his or her wholesale removal of the "essay" should have been discussed on the Talk page first--perhaps separating it, as has been done, would have been the better move.

As with so many arguments, what we have here is a communication failure and differing assumptions. Abtract and Ilkali have let Alastair's maddening tone make them impatient and make them impute bad faith or a sense of ownership to Alastair. More likely, to my mind, is that Alastair hasn't demonstrated that he thinks the owns the article, merely that he thinks that the other editors have not contributed anything worthwhile--if another editor with even a fifth of Alastair's interest in the topic and contributions of content started going at the article, then we would see whether Alastair thinks only he should edit the article or rather, more generously, that Abtract and Ilkali in particular haven't made any worthwhile edits.

My recommendation is that Alastair stop being so arrogant in his tone, and that everyone stop out-and-out reverting or deleting. If you don't like an addition, either improve it, or put a mild tag (such as "citation needed") on it and make a comment on the Talk page. Sheesh--I've spent too much time on this. Really, everyone involved just needs to be more forbearing and generous and not jerks. --Atemperman (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One last remark: See WP:Burden: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. But:

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.

If everyone simply put one of these gentle tags on, and then gave the other editors a generous amount of time (more than a week, unless editors are very frequently working on the page), rather than removing w/o warning, that'd go a long way to improving the "workplace environment". Atemperman (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Abtract (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for repeating all the procedural issues, which I've been pointing out to Ilkali and Abtact above, it's good to have someone agree that I'm right. However, overlooking the demonstrated arrogant behaviour of Ilkali and Abtact and applying that assessment to my assertiveness in defence of my character only intensifies the issue. I will be deleting those references, along with all others I consider to be personal attacks, according to the policy regarding personal attacks, and at the deadline I gave above.

Remember please, I was the first to complain about high-handed behaviour from Ilkali, that is the real issue here. Ilkali has still offered no apology. Until he does, the issue will always be outstanding. Everything else is no more than a smoke screen. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not thoroughly inspect the history of the page; rather, I read the exchanges on the talk page about 1 1/2 times. So it's highly possible that I or other disinterested commenters would conclude from editors' actions that Ilkali or Abtract have acted arrogantly, but to be frank, I don't care to peruse the history of the page, at least not at the moment. Perhaps this ends up disadvantaging Alastair in my comments; if it does, I express my regret, but without looking at and digesting every bit of material relevant to the RfC, which would take more time than I have, no third party will have a completely unbiased view of the controversy.

As for whether criticisms of Alastair's contributions to the talk page are personal attacks, well, they're critical, no doubt, but I've tried to be careful to comment only on his tone and presentation, without saying anything like "Alastair is a bastard" or assuming motivations or interior attitudes which I don't have access to. And given that the RfC was more about the behavior of an editor than it was about the content of the article, it seems impossible to answer it without trying to identify how the various editors have acted or "spoken" suboptimally. --Atemperman (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an excellent reply Atemperman.

Thanks for saying exactly what I've been saying all along, "the RfC was more about the behavior of an editor than it was about the content of the article".

As such, it is a personal attack in itself. Talk pages are not the place for such things, and RfC does not exist for such purposes.

I've changed my mind, all reference to my character will be deleted after 24 hours, from the timestamp of this note.

Any further attempts to make comments about my character will be deleted as soon as I see them, as provided for by policy.

As regards attempting objective comment on my tone, as you note, it is not based on all the information. Even so, it is still a poor assessment, given that Ilkali's first words were provocative, and every reply since has continued such provocation. It took far too long for me to recognize him for the troll that he was being.

This RfC is now closed. The conclusion is that Ilkali has continuously acted like a troll, and I've been too gentle with him.

Alastair Haines (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point User:Alastair Haines was blocked, which effectively closed the RfC (for the moment). Abtract (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Gender role, Image and Tag

I have restored the section on gender role, and will expand it in due course. Abtact may like to visit the Gender article to see that precise language for gender requires modifiers in most languages in current literature -- gender identity, gender role, etc.

A picture of the word God in Gothic, as refered to in OED etymology is the ideal illustration. Not sure why this was removed. I've restored it.

There's been some discussion of the tag. It doesn't apply, since internal links provide plenty of sources for most of its claims. If Abtact cares, he may wish to grab refs from those articles. That would be a constructive edit, a helpful demonstration of good faith at the current time. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear about wp policy "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources". Abtract (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pruning: Definition of 'God' and Comparative religion

(Article version at time of posting: [3])

1. Is it really necessary for us to discuss the definition and etymology of the term God in this article? While that kind of detail may have a place on Wikipedia, I strongly think it should be reserved for the God article.
2. The majority of the 'Comparative religion' section seems insufficiently relevant both to gender and to God. Examples:
   1. "What is understood by words for god varies across cultures and has sometimes changed dramatically at various times. Buddhism challenged various ideas in Hinduism, the montheism of Judaism challenged its polytheistic neighbours, and [...]". So what?
   2. "A simple view of the history of religion as an evolutionary process was proposed in the 19th century—from animism to polytheism to monotheism, with some believing theism, atheism or agnosticism to be [...]". So what?
   3. "animist religions are common among preliterate societies, many of which still exist in the 21st century. Typically, natural forces and shaman spiritual guides feature in these religions, rather than fully fledged personal divinities with [...]". So what?
   This whole section seems like a general essay on comparative religion. Hardly any of it is relevant, and since at least two editors (possibly three? [4]) have expressed as much, I'm going to be bold and remove it until consensus is in its favor.

Ilkali (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree ... delete them both, they are not relevant to the article since both God and gender are significant articles which can be linked. As to the comparative religion section, I have said several times that imho it is simply an essay which has almost no relevance to this article. Abtract (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Consensus time

To make things a little easier, it is probably worth applying this tag. Let's play by the rules. No changes until we discuss them. Until everyone agrees, no changes. Alastair Haines (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Until everyone agrees, no changes from your preferred version of the article? How is that different from before you were blocked? Ilkali (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I will leave your comment Ilkali, because it shows you are insisting on addressing editors rather than the text of the article. Your behaviour at this page has been disruptive for two reasons, you make edits without seeking agreement first (there are dozens of diffs to prove this). And you address editors not sources and text (plenty of text proves this too). I will digress no further. Issues with editors should be on talk pages or other forums. I shall remove my own comments about you eventually, because you and I are irrelevant to the article.

I will restore the page to the point prior to Ilkali's arrival, and see where we go from there. Any text added since that point can be recovered and added here for discussion. Comments about other editors are not welcome.

Looking forward to suggestions for improvements to the article, it needs heaps. I'll not be adding anything myself for a couple of months, but I'll take an active interest in the meantime. Perhaps Ilkali would like to get the ball rolling. How do you think things could be improved? Alastair Haines (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)