The gender of god

It's been long time since I posted anything, but time is scarce. Today, however, I was motivated by the silly response of someone identifying herself as Shirley J. Schultz in this posting from Sabio Lantz's Triangulations. She kept talking about god as if god were male:

... you also keep calling God “your God”. There is only one God. Different cultures call Him by different names. He is your God, too...

I don't understand why religious people (muslims, christians, jews, and others) don't ever wonder why they refer to god using the masculine personal personal pronouns "he", "him" and "his". Is it because they think god is male?

I raised this issue with muslims several times. Allah is gender-less, they respond. Fine then, I'll call Allah a "she". No, they reply. This is blasphemy.

Why can’t  religious people see the irrationality of attaching a male pronoun (and, therefore, a gender) to god? Let us consider the following two statements:

1. It is a fact that god has (male) gender because the scriptures tell us so and we may not refute the scriptures.
2. God has male gender because the concept was created by people in patriarchal societies.

Then statement (2) is much more likely than (1). If we were, therefore, to choose between (1) and (2) we ought to choose (2). Of course, both might be wrong, in which case a third option is needed. Since religious folk, like Shirley J. Schultz, seem to be firmly convinced that god has a (male) gender, they should either tell us whether they  accepts (1) or (2) or a third alternative which they should provide us with.

My fault, however, is that I tend to think that all people are rational. This is wrong. I devised the follloing hypothetical dialogue with  Shirley J. Schultz:

Shirley: God does not have gender. He is above human nature.
Takis: But you keep using “he”.
Shirley: Well, this is just a convention.
Takis: OK, I understand. So it’s fine if I say “God’s works reveal her glory”.
Shirley: No, you can’t say that.
Takis: Why not?
Shirley: It’s a blasphemy.
Takis: But you told me god does not have gender.
Shirley: Yes, but the bible says “he”.
Takis: Was the bible written by god?
Shirley: Yes, of course!
Takis: Then god tells us god prefers to be addressed by the male pronoun.
Shirley: This is not important. He does not have gender.
Takis: OK, may I then refer to god as “it”? Like: “God’s works reveal its glory”.
Shirley: You may not (emphatically) call god “it”. God is not a thing!
Takis: I didn’t say so, I was just trying to avoid assigning a gender to god. So, if “it” is not allowed, I will use “she”.
Shirley: No, you can’t do that.
Takis: Why not?
Shirley: It’s a blasphemy.
Takis: But you told me god does not have gender.
etc.
etc.

There is absolutely no way to get the argument resolved, because Shirley has no way to defend her position. She is falling into a contradiction. On one hand god has no gender, but on the other we are being told god likes to be called a “he”. So, even if god has no gender, god prefers the male pronoun.

A second version of the dialogue (I won’t bother writing it down) could start by Shirley supporting the idea that man is created in the image of god, so god has a gender. Now, why god has male gender is baffling, and Shirley won’t be able to defend the simple observation that this implies that god gives preference to men.

In either case, Shirley has no rational argument and/or will reach a contradiction. But such is the religious mind. It is not disturbed by the irrational even when the irrational is obvious. The religious mind would rather hurt itself or hurt other but would never admit violation of (elementary) logic.

Sabio gave me a response. He thinks that Shirley would have responded in this way:

“Jehovah, the one true God, has always been spoken of a as a masculine entity. God is certainly above our understanding, and this use of a masculine pronoun should not narrow our thinking, but it is the closest pronoun to describing God than any other. To assume God is anything like your common notions of the word “he” just illustrates how dimly you see into the nature of God. He is there for you, Takis, be open to his spirit and language will stop becoming an obstacle between you and God.”

 And continued, thus:

Shirley could have mustered together a fairly intelligent response, or she could have fumbled and given a totally contradictory rambling. But if you think you are going to trap her and it will change her, you may be wrong if she is more highly vested in her commitment than to a temporary argument. Even if you frustrate her argument, she will come back with some trite platitude and tell you how you must come to worship the one true God.

He is right. I still, however, would love a rational response  about god's gender from Shirley J. Schultz or other religious people.

P.S. Soon I hope to post another article, related to gender issues which are very important in Sweden.  As I pointed out before, they even have a government department dealing with these issues. A few months ago, I attended a couple of lectures on gender issues, and, in particular, on issues regarding women's under-represented positions, and asked the question whether they have ever considered the role of religion in connection with this. Surprisingly, the speaker didn't have a clue and hadn't even thought about it, apparently. More on this in a future post.