Why do Christians typically fail to use inclusive language?

Question

On my previous question, I noticed many references to God judging men, etc. Does this let women off the hook when it comes to God's judgment or is it the fact that most Christian believers have little understanding about how to properly exegete the scriptures they love to recite (oh, the damage old King James did to the Greek and Hebrew language to justify his divorce)? Or finally, is it just the perpetuation of past and present misogynistic attitudes towards women in general? This is especially interesting given the biblical fact that Jesus crossed the social barriers of his time to be inclusive of women so that they, too, could be empowered!

Hey Ronald. There's a word you might understand someday besides mankind -- humankind! It's in the dictionary too.

I'm referring to the King James Bible - duh!

Answer 1

In addition to being a historical account and a reflection of the word of God, people use it for personal advantage to increase power over other people. Depending on who is interpreting it, it is either the word of God or the devils whore.

This is why you need to take responsibility for your interpretation and scrutinize other peoples views. Some people think they are absolved for committing indecent and inhumane acts in the name of the Bible.

Answer 2

Learn your history before you try to qoute it. It was King Henry XVIII, not King James, who bullied his church to compromise it's position against divorce for his own personal convenience. If you read your King James Bible you will see Jesus speaking against divorce.

When people speak of God judging man, it means "mankind". Even Jesus used the word "man" in this way, not to the exclusion of women.

When I first read the Bible I had no trouble understanding this. You have proven yourself to have little understanding about how to properly exegete the scriptures you so love to incorrectly recite.

Answer 3

I'm a Christian and I'm telling you that when the Bible says man, it means mankind. This means both men and women. Women won't be let off of the hook at all. Women can preach, teach and spread the Gospel just as I can. Who did Jesus first appear to when he was resurected? Thats right, it was woman.

Answer 4

Man means mankind. Just like cattle includes cows and bulls.

King James did not divorce his wife BTW--you're probably thinking of Henry VIII. And before you go around calling the Bible misogynistic, you would do well to read the last chapter of Proverbs.

Answer 5

Here's a thought; the first person in the bible to spread the good news that Jesus had risen from the dead, was a woman, Mary she told the apostles.

Answer 6

It'd be pretty hard for me to be a misogynist,considering I'm female myself.
Seriously,using references to 'men' 'man' 'mankind' doesn't mean that they are woman haters.It's just the language.I'm not bothered by it.
And it wasn't King James who did the translation himself.I fail to see how using 'mankind' in a verse would justify his divorce.

Answer 7

Consider the society Jesus was part of. It centered around men, they had all the power, just look at how the temple was set up.

Answer 8

I love the irony, Turnhog. The contemptuous isolation of Christians for ridicule, coupled with a demand for inclusive language. Thanks for the chuckle. I'm off to bed, Einstien.

Answer 9

No, there is really no major problem. It just another atheist trying to find fault in Christianity. Maybe if you ever went to church you would find that women are respected to the upmost. If you are fortunate you might even get to hear one preach. If you want perfection look to your atheist organizations. I'm sure you believe you will find it their.

Answer 10

at the beginning, good intentions could be referred to as such. as quickly as you have shown in the lecture room which you agree for human beings as they're, scholars will could nicely known that this additionally applies to them, whoever, regardless of they're. that's what's useful. no longer no count in case you agree for something they despise, however the certainty that regardless, they are going to be common. i think of intolerance and discrimination are subject concerns that we could take care of all our lives. in the present day's babies could be uncovered to their very own intolerance and would communicate the situation with those they're illiberal in direction of besides as people who're illiberal in direction of them. Ask your non secular scholars what they might do if day after today their mom and dad switched religions. would they stick to them and look down on the contributors of their previous faith or would they save their faith and shun their mom and dad? all of us replace. Many replace religions. Many replace their minds on the values they cherish, on the flaws they locate proper or no longer. it incredibly is without doubt one among the main mandatory reasons we could constantly combat intolerance: because of the fact those we like would sooner or later replace and become something we are illiberal in direction of. because of the fact our relatives, our childrens, would sooner or later take place to be something we misunderstood or misjudged. because of the fact we would replace and become the article of hatred or discrimination ourselves. save up the good paintings and be certain you get those scholars questioning approximately those substantial subject concerns.