Inclusive language

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_of_Woking
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Bradley:
So I guess you have no problem with reinforcing the idea that god is a Man?

Personally, I don’t care one way or the other. Inclusive language doesn’t change the meaning of the text, unless you want us to believe that God is a man, which is obviously not the case, as God has made us all in God’s own image. So, if someone feels strongly enough about it to go through and take the time to change it, cool, go for it. For me, I’ll take it or leave it
Click to expand...
Jesus= Divine Person with Human and Divine Nature
Jesus = Male
Jesus = God
One Person of the Blessed Trinity = Male.
 
John of Woking:
Jesus= Divine Person with Human and Divine Nature
Jesus = Male
Jesus = God
One Person of the Blessed Trinity = Male.
Click to expand...
May I also second this with: Jeus refers to HIs Father in heaven.

God = Father
Father = Male
God= Male

SO that makes 2 persons of the Blessed Trinity Male

By the way, my opinion is women that are upset by writings in Bible such as in Matthew 4:4. But He answered and said, "It is written, ‘man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’ " are insecure. (I am a women by the way). I mean I know that man in certain contextes means men and women, this does not offend me.

As a side note I feel the same way about about women who get all upset because there are no women priests. The priest represents Jesus, Jesus was a man. Contrary to what feminists would lead you to believe men and women are different, thank God! I think it’s such a joke when they say we want to be treated equally, what they really want is to be treated like a man which implies men are better and we need to be like them -hah! They deny the beautiful nature of women. How in the world is that pro-women?

Sorry I’ll stop rambling now and step off my soap box.😃
 
If the Church should use inclusive language in Her pronouncements, teachings, clarifications, illuminations, etc., that’s ok, I guess. It is, however, wrong to mess with Scripture, the Baptismal formula (it would invalidate whatever “baptisms” were performed using it, unless I am very much mistaken) and the liturgy. I don’t know a single woman who doesn’t think when the word “man” appears in Scripture that it doesn’t include them. Even the most radical feminist has to admit that or acknowledge a very immature understanding of language!
 
Not only is inclusive language wrong - we cannot change the words of Scripture - as another post said, it’s bad grammar.

Radical feminists have already tried to destroy the English language. They would have us write, “Each one wanted their own book.” There is a rule about subject/verb agreement, or at least there used to be. I see this kind of “grammar” in the newspapers frequently. It’s wrong.

Also, I can’t wait for the new translations to come out from the reconstituted ICEL. Every time the lector begins the reading of the epistle with “Brothers and sisters…” I have to offer up my irritation. Show me one place, just one, where St. Paul EVER used “Brothers and sisters,” as a salutation.
 
40.png
Altisimus:
If the Church should use inclusive language in Her pronouncements, teachings, clarifications, illuminations, etc., that’s ok, I guess.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not. See my post above.

Altisimus said:
]
Even the most radical feminist has to admit that or acknowledge a very immature understanding of language
Click to expand...

Rather a disdain for the language, I think.
 
I think that people are often too sensitive over these issues. They do not realize that “man” does not refer to a “male,” but, rather, it refers to “MANkind.” :yup:
 
40.png
Bradley:
I have a friend who is working on her third Master’s degree in English who would greatly disagree with you. Man is man, woman is woman. The real problem is that, unlike languages like latin, English lacks a basic nueter case, and therefore lacks an appropriate personal neuter pronoun. However, because the English is lacking does not mean it is already inclusive.
Click to expand...
And did your friend tell you that Latin opts for the neuter personal pronoun when referring to people of indeterminate or groups of mixed gender?

If so, both of you things would be mistaken.

tee
 
Mankind = Man + WomanIt covers both. On the sixth day he created man. Male and female he created them.
 
40.png
amasimp:
I personally find it offensive that someone would think that I lack the mental capacity…
Click to expand...
40.png
amasimp:
Where did we come up with the notion that we have the right not to be offended? The fact is that one can only be offended if you *let *somebody offend you
Click to expand...
:oSorry, I just had trouble fitting these two together.
 
Jesus was male. jesus refers tio his parent in heaven as the father. the new testement says in his second coming he will be king of kings and lord of lords. God is the groom his bride is the church. sounds like God is pretty male to me.
 
I am not a lover of inclusive language as it is being discussed here, but I have a question. No doubt Jesus in His personna as a man was male. He did use the male term “Father” when referring to the first person of the trinity. My question is,“How can pure spirits be either male or female?” Seems to me never having been embodied, so to speak, they would be androgenis.
 
40.png
amasimp:
Where did we come up with the notion that we have the right not to be offended? The fact is that one can only be offended if you *let *somebody offend you. Political correctness is one of the worst things to come out of the last 50 years.
Click to expand...
are you familiar with the expression “tongue in cheek?” We rely on acronymns a lot here, so here is a new one. now listen up, folks, when I add TIC to my post you will know I am being facetious. Can you say “facetious” boys and girls?
 
40.png
rayne89:
By the way, my opinion is women that are upset by writings in Bible such as in Matthew 4:4. But He answered and said, "It is written, ‘man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’ " are insecure. (I am a women by the way). I mean I know that man in certain contextes means men and women, this does not offend me.

Sorry I’ll stop rambling now and step off my soap box.😃
Click to expand...
Good post, I didn’t want to copy all of it to save space. I too find “inclusive” language jarring, undtraditional, and ruins the poetic rhythm of the verse. IOW makes me wanna hurl. The Bible has such beautiful poetic images. Why to people want to reduce it to some kind of antispetic and sterilized version of the Original?
Lisa N
 
Brothers and Sisters,

I think that the “inclusive language” issue needs to be sub-divided into categories:
  1. Referring to God (vertical)
  2. Referring to humans (horizontal)
    2a. Referring to mankind
    2b. Referring to males / females solely
Vertically addressed inclusive language should never be allowed. Culturally, we need to move past the male stereotypes applied to God. God is the perfection man (both mankind and maleness). When referring to God as Father we should not impose our fallen view of “father” upon God.

Horizontally addressed inclusive language is harder to paint so broadly. Some occurrences in the scriptures mean mankind, while some mean man. Some mean brothers and sisters, while some mean brothers.

I am not the scholar to determine which one means which. Even the experts seem to have trouble (see Commentary on the Revision of the Lectionary for Mass).

I don’t think anyone would think the man / woman in 1 Cor:11 would refer to mankind.

Overall, I think that this issue says a lot about our society. Maybe it’s the backlash of overly domineering males? When men/women are truly seen in the light of God - the way He created them to be - we will be able to move beyond this issue, and talk about “brethren” and “man” (kind ) without fear or misunderstanding.
 
Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is tested, … Add nothing to his words lest he reprove you and you be exposed as a deceiver.”
 
The Liturgy must reflect the theological Truth of our Faith, in spite of the ancient male dominated influences still evident within the Church today.
 
40.png
buffalo:
The English language is already an inclusive language. When using man or mankind it is welll understood that it includes men and women. There are many other examples as well. This is a recent fad, and tells us much about what is taught in school about the English language.
Click to expand...
it has nothing to do with God’s word’. Let the text reflect whatever is standard English of the present day. If it is a recent fad that starts to fad away, fine. Once most English writing is using this, then at some point the tet shoudl follow
 
40.png
patg:
The Liturgy must reflect the theological Truth of our Faith, in spite of the ancient male dominated influences still evident within the Church today.
Click to expand...
A) If the Holy Father/heads of congregations/Bishops/Pastors want to address teachings, encyclicals, etc., to “the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church,” and wants to say “they”/“them” instead of “he/her”, that’s fine. No fight here.

B) If, however, the end goal for proponents of inclusive language is a complete neutering of the Scriptures, the Deposit of the Faith, the Liturgy, it won’t and shouldn’t happen. Jesus taught us to call God “Abba,” the very personal form of “Father.” He sent His Apostles into the world, telling them to baptize “in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” not the “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.” I agree with the poster who said it would invalidate baptisms. Words are symbols, sometimes poor and impoverished, intended to convey a greater reality. Jesus taught us to relate to this Reality, THE Reality, using these words/symbols. It’s like women’s ordination, IMHO…the Church may well not have the competence to make this change…thank God.
 
40.png
CatholicGeek:
When men/women are truly seen in the light of God - the way He created them to be - we will be able to move beyond this issue, and talk about “brethren” and “man” (kind ) without fear or misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s exactly the way we used to speak and write before people started artificial tinkering with the English language. There was never any misunderstanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top