I don't know about the language these prayers are written in originally, but in English, "lord" can only refer to males. So, even if you avoid the pronoun you don't avoid the genders.
True.
In German, my native language, we have three genders, like the pronouns in English, but using "es" ('it') doesn't seem like a proper alternative. Not only is it mostly used for things, but if it's used for people then it implies pejoration, denigration or diminution.
Exactly, but, a divine, omnipotent, creator, God that is "One", could hardly be equated with people, much less have a need for reproduction, sexual or otherwise. In fact, religions have struggled with this conundrum of a male god in need of a female. It's even occurred in biblical apocrypha. And we're sometimes treated to a god with both male & female qualities.
Most notably, we see this male/female duality (in parallel with other dualities) in the yin/yang symbol.
All I'm saying is that "It" is the best we have at this point, and overcoming the minor pejorative negatives is easier than trying the near impossible of coining a new word. Yes, "it" is used for things, but when it comes down to it, we don't know that God isn't a thing, albeit a conscious, supernatural thing.
Neuter gender nouns that refer to people refer either to children, or are pejorative expressions, mostly referring to women (pejorative expressions for men are often feminine). In some dialects neuter pronouns can also be used in a respectful manner if referring to children and female adults, but that's not the case in my dialect.
And the word "Gott" ('god') itself also is masculine here. It was a neuter about 1500 years ago, but even going back to inflecting it as a neuter doesn't help much since in half the cases neuter forms are identical to masculine forms, so even neuter doesn't really feel like a truly neutral form.
Progress almost always requires effort, and cost, but if the goal is positive, it's worth it.
So, if referring to a god as a non-personal something, e.g. as in advaita, I'd use "it", if referring to a specific deity I'd either use "he" or "she", or, if that fits better, "shi" or "xe".
Well isn't the non-dual one and only God, the advaita, thus qualifying it for your designation as "It" (capitalized of course, which helps to convey respect). Speaking of progress, I think this qualifies. BTW, I'd never know English wasn't your native language.
One, how do you know this, and two, why did he make us this way then?
What need would an eternally One God need of reproduction. And we don't know all sentients in the universe ARE "this way". But more than that, what you ask is pretty much the same thing as asking why we suffer, why we must toil, and why we all must die. A lot had to be done to spawn sentients in rational environment in which to make free will rational, moral choices without being under the influence of God--if God exists at all.
What is praiseworthy is the sincere effort to know and understand God. As I said, with the connotations that revolve around "it", I remain in the camp that it is over-the-top to reference God as "It." Many years ago I read a story about a horribly abused child. The book's title: A Child Called "It".
A non-sequitur. And again, I'm attempting to overcome the negative connotations, in part by capitalizing "It". And, btw, the child in the title isn't an it, he's a boy. Just because
some people use a word in a negative way, that doesn't mean we should surrender that word to the bad guys. That's part of the evil of political correctness.
Still, this goes back to, "Do unto others..." If you would prefer to be referred to as "It" than a mistaken "him" or "her", you may have a case.
I'm talking about God being a revered It. Which doesn't mean I, not being God, but a man, am a he.
Also on your side is that it is used as a second reference for people in sentences such as, "The mayor told the City Council it should not act hastily." Where we agree is that God fully understands what is in your heart.
Indeed.
