The point is that if Christianity was any good, the subject matter would be something other than their supreme being. I am arguing that precisely because it isn't the true nature of organized religion is suggested -- a controlling tool.
I can't see any logical basis for the first sentence. The subject matter is what it is, as is the case for any field of inquiry or endeavor. That's like complaining that a book is terribly written because of its subject.
I have never seen "it" used when referring to god, except by agnostics and atheists.
What I meant was that
she is occasionally used in theological discourse.
In English, we simply do not use gendered pronouns unless we are talking about an animal (the one exception is calling machines "she"). Therefore, even if a person considers god to be non-gendered, calling it a "he" subconsciously reinforces the opposite. It is just that simple.
Yet Christians believe in a
personal God. Their God, though pure spirit, is a
person, not an impersonal phenomenon or entity. We tend not to refer to persons as
it.
It, not coincidentally, is what we call an "impersonal pronoun". Still, because the only concrete examples of physical persons we have (other human beings) are generally either male or female, our language has developed to leave us with male or female personal pronouns. That is what I referred to as a "grammatical limitation." I don't see an easy and non-awkward way out of that, frankly. And it is precisely because, as you say, calling something "he" risks subconsciously reinforcing the impression of a male human person, that Christian theology is replete with explicit reminders of God's sexlessness in order to countervail that impression.
In other languages, the potential problem is perhaps less acute than in English. For example, in French, the word for "he" can be considered either personal or impersonal.
People are members of the animal kingdom.
I realize that human beings are members of the animal kingdom. This is why I expressly signaled my assumption - in case it was incorrect - that you were using
animal in the most common sense,
i.e. to refer to
non-human members of the animal kingdom. Thank you for clarifying this, though.
I am sure this is exactly what they would say in their defense as well. The president can tell everyone how crappy and unimportant his job is -- will that have any effect on all the people that want to be him?
But I have no idea whether that is a valid comparison. After all, I understand the president's role in our civil society. Even though I've never been president, I have expertise in the constitutional and statutory provisions that define and characterize his office. I do not possess a similar understanding of the nature of the ordained Catholic priesthood in the context of Catholicism. In the same way that my understanding of the presidency derives from and defers to the Constitution and laws, I am inclined to defer to Catholic doctrine and theology to gain an understanding of the fundamental nature of the ordained priesthood as it relates to the laity and the rest of the religion.
I haven't ever had the time or interest to do this in any depth, but one thing that appears to be the case with the ordained priesthood is that it is defined and characterized in a manner not inconsistent with the basic Christian precept of gender equality. I don't fully grasp exactly how, frankly. Yet just as I understand more than a layman would about the federal executive branch, I realize that I understand much less than the Catholic magisterium does about the priesthood. It's for this reason that I am less than confident about making the sorts of assertions that you're making here.
Don't you think the fact that those cultures got completely overrun by others has something to do with things?
You misunderstand; I was referring to the situation
while those cults prospered, not the situation after they disappeared.
Ahhh, now you are on to something. What exactly does "obviously not identical" mean? Don't you think that accepting a disclaimer like that leaves a lot of room for manipulation?
Yes, I agree that accepting it does leave room for manipulation. However, considering that the alternative (that the sexes
are identical) is clearly wrong, I think we are bound by reason to accept it anyway, without necessarily binding ourselves in advance to any specific articulation of all the ways in which the sexes are
not identical.
I think some of them look pretty darn powerful when entire armies cut paths of destruction through populations, claiming to be fighting for them.
I think we must concede religions are not powerful enough to make the members of a society internalize and consistently apply moral or other metaphysical precepts. You asked why, in societies strongly influenced by Christianity, sexism still exists even though it is a "sin" and Christian doctrine instructs Christians as to equality among the sexes. My point was, you might as well doubt that the Church was committed to
any of its formal teachings (charity, selflessness, brotherhood, etc.) since almost all of them are disregarded with some frequency in even the most heavily Christian societies. A raging army is pretty much powerless to do anything about that.
Both of which are simply stupid reasons.
Both seem valid enough reasons
if true; I simply don't have enough information to determine whether or not they are false.
