Gender of the Deity

[ZackMartin]

Hi

Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) tend to view God as male. This "maleness" is not meant in a sort of base materialistic way, e.g. to suggest that God has a male physical body. But still, there seems to be a definite preference for using male language to describe the deity - He rather She, God rather than Goddess, Father rather than Mother, King rather than Queen, etc. And they often tend to argue that this is actually a preference of God himself, rather than a merely cultural thing - attempts to use female language for God, in either of those three religions, are generally met with theological objections by conservatives. I think in orthodox Christianity, God is male in an additional sense in which he is not in Judaism or Islam, for God chose, as a one time only affair, to become incarnate as a human being, and on that occasion, he chose to become a male rather than female human being. I think the Incarnation gives the maleness of God an extra "kick" in Christianity that it lacks in those other religions.

By contrast, the polytheistic religions which they replaced (the ancient polytheisms of Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Near East, Arabia, Germans, Celts, etc.) were much more positive about female conceptions of the deity, given that their panoplies of deities generally included numerous goddesses. A note about the term "polytheism" - many of the more sophisticated polytheists, such as Greek and Roman philosophers, were really inclusive monotheists - they believed that these many deities were somehow different aspects or names or forms of one ultimate deity. Very similar comments can be made about Hinduism - especially since Greek, Roman, Germanic, Celtic and Persian religions (including Zoroastrianism) have a common historical origin with Hinduism, in the ancient Indo-European religion.

For me personally, I was brought up in a Catholic family, not very devout, but devout enough that my mother took me to Church every Sunday (although my father didn't go), at least until I was old enough to overcome her compulsion. I have since then been back a few times of my own free will (not counting weddings and funerals), because sometimes I still feel some sympathy for Catholicism. In my teens and early-to-mid twenties, I spent a fair amount of time attending a church which I would call run-of-the-mill evangelical Protestantism, although I eventually drifted away from that.

One issue I have always had, is I have had this strong sense of the deity being female. I cannot exactly explain why - maybe a psychoanalyst could find a cause for it? I certainly feel like it is something that comes from deep in my psyche, and I'm sure my personal/emotional experiences/make-up play a major role in my feeling that way, even if I can't pin down exactly what the source of it is. Now, when I say I feel the deity is female, I don't mean to say exclusively female rather than male. My own thoughts are, the deity is ultimately genderless, but can be conceived as gendered, and each individual should conceive the deity in whatever gender they feel is most individually helpful to their spiritual life.

So, I had a problem in my involvements in both Catholicism and Protestantism. I believed in God, and wanted a relationship with God, and that was why I attended church; and yet, there was this big disconnect with how the Church presented God, and how I felt I best related to God. In Catholicism, there is a very important female figure, the Virgin Mary, but she never really did it for me - in part, I think, because as high as Catholics view her, she isn't God.

I experimented with Wicca for a while, which is much more open of course to female divinity; but I ended up with the feeling it just wasn't the right tradition for me. I think it was more the whole vibe felt wrong than any specific belief. I've also spent some time in Buddhism - large part of why I left that was the lack of any concept of a deity was gnawing at me.

In conclusion, I suppose what I wanted to say was - if you raise the issue of divine gender with Christians, certainly conservative ones, they will argue that God wants to be viewed as male rather than female, based on the Bible, and the Christian tradition, and whatever else. I've heard all those arguments, but for me they kind of miss the point, because whether they are right or wrong, they don't address the real issue for me, which is how I feel in my heart. So what I wanted to ask, have any conservative defenders of male-only language for God, ever considered the psychological/emotional needs aspects, as opposed to just the scriptural/theological/etc aspects? Maybe it's hard to appreciate if you haven't been there yourself - I don't know.

Regards
Zack

[shunyadragon]

Hi

Western religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) tend to view God as male. This "maleness" is not meant in a sort of base materialistic way, e.g. to suggest that God has a male physical body. But still, there seems to be a definite preference for using male language to describe the deity - He rather She, God rather than Goddess, Father rather than Mother, King rather than Queen, etc. And they often tend to argue that this is actually a preference of God himself, rather than a merely cultural thing - attempts to use female language for God, in either of those three religions, are generally met with theological objections by conservatives. I think in orthodox Christianity, God is male in an additional sense in which he is not in Judaism or Islam, for God chose, as a one time only affair, to become incarnate as a human being, and on that occasion, he chose to become a male rather than female human being. I think the Incarnation gives the maleness of God an extra "kick" in Christianity that it lacks in those other religions.

By contrast, the polytheistic religions which they replaced (the ancient polytheisms of Greece, Rome, Egypt, the Near East, Arabia, Germans, Celts, etc.) were much more positive about female conceptions of the deity, given that their panoplies of deities generally included numerous goddesses. A note about the term "polytheism" - many of the more sophisticated polytheists, such as Greek and Roman philosophers, were really inclusive monotheists - they believed that these many deities were somehow different aspects or names or forms of one ultimate deity. Very similar comments can be made about Hinduism - especially since Greek, Roman, Germanic, Celtic and Persian religions (including Zoroastrianism) have a common historical origin with Hinduism, in the ancient Indo-European religion.

For me personally, I was brought up in a Catholic family, not very devout, but devout enough that my mother took me to Church every Sunday (although my father didn't go), at least until I was old enough to overcome her compulsion. I have since then been back a few times of my own free will (not counting weddings and funerals), because sometimes I still feel some sympathy for Catholicism. In my teens and early-to-mid twenties, I spent a fair amount of time attending a church which I would call run-of-the-mill evangelical Protestantism, although I eventually drifted away from that.

One issue I have always had, is I have had this strong sense of the deity being female. I cannot exactly explain why - maybe a psychoanalyst could find a cause for it? I certainly feel like it is something that comes from deep in my psyche, and I'm sure my personal/emotional experiences/make-up play a major role in my feeling that way, even if I can't pin down exactly what the source of it is. Now, when I say I feel the deity is female, I don't mean to say exclusively female rather than male. My own thoughts are, the deity is ultimately genderless, but can be conceived as gendered, and each individual should conceive the deity in whatever gender they feel is most individually helpful to their spiritual life.

So, I had a problem in my involvements in both Catholicism and Protestantism. I believed in God, and wanted a relationship with God, and that was why I attended church; and yet, there was this big disconnect with how the Church presented God, and how I felt I best related to God. In Catholicism, there is a very important female figure, the Virgin Mary, but she never really did it for me - in part, I think, because as high as Catholics view her, she isn't God.

I experimented with Wicca for a while, which is much more open of course to female divinity; but I ended up with the feeling it just wasn't the right tradition for me. I think it was more the whole vibe felt wrong than any specific belief. I've also spent some time in Buddhism - large part of why I left that was the lack of any concept of a deity was gnawing at me.

In conclusion, I suppose what I wanted to say was - if you raise the issue of divine gender with Christians, certainly conservative ones, they will argue that God wants to be viewed as male rather than female, based on the Bible, and the Christian tradition, and whatever else. I've heard all those arguments, but for me they kind of miss the point, because whether they are right or wrong, they don't address the real issue for me, which is how I feel in my heart. So what I wanted to ask, have any conservative defenders of male-only language for God, ever considered the psychological/emotional needs aspects, as opposed to just the scriptural/theological/etc aspects? Maybe it's hard to appreciate if you haven't been there yourself - I don't know.

Regards
Zack

Actually, Judaism (contemporary beliefs), Islam and the Baha'i Faith take a more apophatic view of God, that considers God ultimately unknowable, and without gender. The scriptural us of the male gender in these scriptures does not indicate actual gender, but would be more appropriately considered gender neutral pronouns.

It is traditional Christianity alone that defines God with male gender, and defines God from a more cataphatic view with the doctrine of the Trinity, and commonly actual conversing with God on a one on one basis.

More to follow . . .

[ZackMartin]

Actually, Judaism (contemporary beliefs), Islam and the Baha'i Faith take a more apophatic view of God, that considers God ultimately unknowable, and without gender. The scriptural us of the male gender in these scriptures does not indicate actual gender, but would be more appropriately considered gender neutral pronouns.

Suppose a feminist proposed, that to be fair, we should use female pronouns equally. Maybe we can retranslate the scriptures (the Torah/Tanach, the Quran, the Baha'i scriptures) and change every second "he"/"him"/"his" into a "she"/"her"/"her" (when it's referring to the Deity, of course)? Now, what would be the average Jewish or Muslim or Baha'i reaction to that proposal? It's just an alternate way of translating it into English, isn't it now? Some of the more liberal ones would agree with that - but I'm sure many conservatives in all three religions would be outraged. Which makes me think, that even if in theory it's all apophatic and genderless, in practice there's more to it than that.

A feminist would also ask, whether this fear of female pronouns for the divine, is connected to a fear of female leadership? Something present to a greater or lesser degree in all three religions - Orthodox Jews don't accept female Rabbis; most Islamic groups don't accept female Imams; women aren't allowed to stand for election to the Universal House of Justice...

Definitely there is a special element of maleness in Christian theology not present in Judaism/Islam/Baha'i, and maybe "cataphatic"/"apophatic" is a good way of looking at it. But I still question whether those three religions live up to in practice what such an apophatic view would entail in theory

Regards, Zack

[shunyadragon]

Suppose a feminist proposed, that to be fair, we should use female pronouns equally. Maybe we can retranslate the scriptures (the Torah/Tanach, the Quran, the Baha'i scriptures) and change every second "he"/"him"/"his" into a "she"/"her"/"her" (when it's referring to the Deity, of course)?

It is a problem more of Western languages, and Christianity. It is well understood through Arabic and Persian that these references are gender neutral. In contemporary Judaism there is no problem with them being gender neutral in reading the Torah, midrash and tradition.

Now, what would be the average Jewish or Muslim or Baha'i reaction to that proposal? It's just an alternate way of translating it into English, isn't it now? Some of the more liberal ones would agree with that - but I'm sure many conservatives in all three religions would be outraged. Which makes me think, that even if in theory it's all apophatic and genderless, in practice there's more to it than that.

From the scriptural perspective, no change in meaning for the Jew, Muslim or Baha'i, but for the traditional Christian there is no way such changes fit Christian theology. I see no outrage, because no change in meaning of the scriptures. You would be changing the western language translation, and not the original writings in Hebrew, Arabic and Persian. There is similar problem of the use of the plural when referring to God in places in the OT. The use of the plural here indicates the omnipotent nature of God and not that there are three Gods in One.

A feminist would also ask, whether this fear of female pronouns for the divine, is connected to a fear of female leadership? Something present to a greater or lesser degree in all three religions - Orthodox Jews don't accept female Rabbis; most Islamic groups don't accept female Imams; women aren't allowed to stand for election to the Universal House of Justice...

The genderless nature of God in these religious beliefs has nothing to do with the roles in traditional or defined by law in leadership and society. The roles of men and women will always be somewhat inherently different regardless of how you wish to define them, which is the way we factually see the role of women progress. The Baha'i Faith views the nature of God's laws to be progressive and changing. the role of women in society evolves in the roles in family, economy, and education, which may change in the future. The roles of women as described in the Baha'i writings is more advanced than any other religion in the past, and at the time they were revealed gave more rights to women than any othe religion and laws of any nation. Like other laws and spiritual principles of the Baha'i, they are to be the standard for all humanity for thousands of years. Since 1844 these have become increasingly the standards not only for the role and rights of women, but also standards such as the abolition of slavery and indentured servitude, universal education, harmony of science and religion, universal standards for the world, and the independent search for truth and knowledge, .

Definitely there is a special element of maleness in Christian theology not present in Judaism/Islam/Baha'i, and maybe "cataphatic"/"apophatic" is a good way of looking at it. But I still question whether those three religions live up to in practice what such an apophatic view would entail in theory

Regards, Zack

This is also in line with the apophatic view of the 'Source' Buddhism, the Tao of Taoism, and in Vedic traditions as the Brahman. The problem with Vedic traditions is things have been complicated over time.

[Cow Poke]

Just a quick question....

Isn't "gender" more about the "role" that an individual plays than the "sex" of the individual?

I seem to remember something like this from Child Psychology.

[Soyeong]

When the Bible describes the attributes of God, I see it as being similar to an attempt to explain a complex subject to a child. God is way beyond our ability to comprehend, yet there are concepts about God that can be related to us in a way that we can understand. For example, when the Bible says that God was angry, I do not think it is say that God experienced the emotion of anger in the way that we do, but rather is saying that God appeared to behave as one does when they are angry. Jesus is not the son of God in the same way that we have sons, but it relates the closeness of their relationship to each other.

While feminists want have women be equal to men, the Bible says that they have different roles. There are some things that only a man can provide a child and vice versa. I have a different sort of relationship with my father than I do with mother, even though they are both my parents. So when it comes to God being male, it's not so much that He wants to be seen as male, as He is telling us that He is playing the role of a father.

[ZackMartin]

Hello Cow Poke,

Isn't "gender" more about the "role" that an individual plays than the "sex" of the individual?

Some people use the words that way; other people treat the words as synonymous. Some people prefer the word "gender" for euphemistic reasons. I think all these different usages are equally correct. When I picked the word "gender", I wasn't basing my choice on any distinction between "sex" and "gender".

Regards, Zack

[ZackMartin]

Hello shunyadragon,

It is a problem more of Western languages, and Christianity. It is well understood through Arabic and Persian that these references are gender neutral. In contemporary Judaism there is no problem with them being gender neutral in reading the Torah, midrash and tradition.

I know a little bit about pronouns in Hebrew; enough to know that I don't know enough to comment on them. I know even less about pronouns in Arabic or Persian. So maybe, when it comes to pronouns at least, you are right.

Here's another question: What if instead of using the translation "God", one was to use the translation "Goddess"? What would Muslims, Jews, Baha'is think of that?

Consider the word "Allah" in Arabic. We all know what this word means, it means God - and although many people think of it as specifically Islamic, Arabic-speaking followers of other religions use it in the same way. And it literally means al-lah, "the god". The word "the" indicates we are talking about the one the only monotheistic god, not one of the numerous gods of polytheism. Now what about the word "Allat"? It is the feminine of "Allah", it means "the goddess". Who was Allat? She was worshipped in pre-Islamic Arabia, variously believed to be either Allah's wife, or one of Allah's daughters. You might remember her from the infamous incident of the Satanic Verses. Suppose one was to propose to Muslims to worship Allat? "Oh no, that's shirk!" "No it's not; Allat is not a partner of Allah; Allah and Allat are two different names for the same thing". I doubt many Muslims would react positively to that. "Allat is the name of a pagan goddess!" Well, the pagans worshipped Allat and they worshipped Allah; Allat is no more of a pagan goddess than Allah is a pagan god.

The genderless nature of God in these religious beliefs has nothing to do with the roles in traditional or defined by law in leadership and society. The roles of men and women will always be somewhat inherently different regardless of how you wish to define them,

We live in a world where almost anything that men can do, women can too, and vice versa. Numerous women have been Prime Ministers, Presidents, CEOs, etc. I know of cases where the woman goes to work every day, and the man stays home and looks after the kids (often when the woman has achieved greater success in her career, or belongs to a higher-paying profession, compared to the man.) I don't think there's anything wrong with that; I think, if only one parent is to work, the one with the most income-generating capacity is a rational choice, regardless of whether that be the the man or the woman.

One area in which the roles are definitely different is biological reproduction; but with ever-increasing advances in reproductive technology, this will become less true over time. Ever heard of a mouse called Kaguya - a mouse with two mothers. Interestingly, bimaternal mice live longer than mice produced the usual way. If we can do it to mice, there is no reason in principle why we couldn't do it to humans too (I guess they'd test it on larger animals first, like dogs, cats, cows, horses, chimpanzees, before trying it on humans). There is definitely a market for this technology - lesbian couples. (If bimaternal mice live longer, will bimaternal humans live longer too?) So men become an optional extra for the purposes of reproduction.

And why stop there? Male pregnancy? (Seen the film?). Well, it is going to be very difficult, so it is probably quite a way off, but there is no reason to suppose it is impossible, so we'll get there eventually. Male ectopic pregnancy is likely possible with today's technology, although so extraordinarily risky to both father and child, that no one in their right mind would attempt it. Probably one day we'll be able to grow uteri in vats from stem cells, for implantation into eager daddies-to-be.

Growing babies in vats, as in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World? Again, technically challenging, and probably decades away, but there seems nothing impossible about it in principle. There are people doing research in this area already; they get funding for their research on the basis of an artificial womb to save the lives of premature babies. But once they develop one, the babies will get more and more premature, and eventually they'll be implanting embryos. Maybe one day people will look back on viviparity as some obscene barbarism, just like they did in Huxley's book. Maybe one day prospective parents will log on to a website, design a genome that offers just the traits they are after, pop in their credit card number, then wait nine months for the baby to be home-delivered by UPS? Who knows what the future holds?

The only other area where I see much difference between men and women is in activities requiring extremes of muscular performance, such as professional athletics and elite units in the armed forces. Here, the issue is simply that men have much more capacity to build muscle than women do, so the maximum of male physical performance will always exceed the maximum of the female, although many individual women are stronger than many individual men. I'm sure science can change things here too.

The Baha'i Faith views the nature of God's laws to be progressive and changing

So in which year will they elect women to the Universal House of Justice?

Regards, Zack

[ZackMartin]

While feminists want have women be equal to men, the Bible says that they have different roles. There are some things that only a man can provide a child and vice versa. I have a different sort of relationship with my father than I do with mother, even though they are both my parents. So when it comes to God being male, it's not so much that He wants to be seen as male, as He is telling us that He is playing the role of a father.

So, in what specific ways is God more like a father than a mother? What specific properties of God are more like the properties of a father than the properties of a mother?

Regards, Zack

[robrecht]

Actually, Judaism (contemporary beliefs), Islam and the Baha'i Faith take a more apophatic view of God, that considers God ultimately unknowable, and without gender. The scriptural us of the male gender in these scriptures does not indicate actual gender, but would be more appropriately considered gender neutral pronouns.

It is traditional Christianity alone that defines God with male gender, and defines God from a more cataphatic view with the doctrine of the Trinity, and commonly actual conversing with God on a one on one basis.

More to follow . . .

Apophatic theology is very well entrenched in Christian thought. Consider that the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite were considered to be genuine writings of an actual convert of Paul until the time of Peter Abelard. For example, Dionysius' apophatic theology is fundamental to the method of Thomas Aquinas, for whom all language about God is analogical. The mystery behind the analogy is absolute, and in the end Thomas refused to write any more and even tried to burn his work because it was mere straw in comparison with the true God.

[shunyadragon]

Apophatic theology is very well entrenched in Christian thought. Consider that the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite were considered to be genuine writings of an actual convert of Paul until the time of Peter Abelard. For example, Dionysius' apophatic theology is fundamental to the method of Thomas Aquinas, for whom all language about God is analogical. The mystery behind the analogy is absolute, and in the end Thomas refused to write any more and even tried to burn his work because it was mere straw in comparison with the true God.

Yes, apophatic theology is a part of Christianity, but the relationship between humanity and Creation is defined in Catophatic doctrine, and other elements of the claims of an exclusive personal relationship with God are Cataphatic in nature.

[shunyadragon]

Hello shunyadragon,

I know a little bit about pronouns in Hebrew; enough to know that I don't know enough to comment on them. I know even less about pronouns in Arabic or Persian. So maybe, when it comes to pronouns at least, you are right.

More specifically how the pronouns are understood in scripture. There is no gender in this context.

Here's another question: What if instead of using the translation "God", one was to use the translation "Goddess"? What would Muslims, Jews, Baha'is think of that?

This is splitting frog hairs. The Arabic and Persian use of the word for God has no gender as defined in the writings concerning monotheism. We have a distinct Christian anthropomorphic problem in Western Culture. Part of the journey is to dump these hangups of ancient archeac world views.

Consider the word "Allah" in Arabic. We all know what this word means, it means God - and although many people think of it as specifically Islamic, Arabic-speaking followers of other religions use it in the same way. And it literally means al-lah, "the god". The word "the" indicates we are talking about the one the only monotheistic god, not one of the numerous gods of polytheism. Now what about the word "Allat"? It is the feminine of "Allah", it means "the goddess". Who was Allat? She was worshipped in pre-Islamic Arabia, variously believed to be either Allah's wife, or one of Allah's daughters. You might remember her from the infamous incident of the Satanic Verses. Suppose one was to propose to Muslims to worship Allat? "Oh no, that's shirk!" "No it's not; Allat is not a partner of Allah; Allah and Allat are two different names for the same thing". I doubt many Muslims would react positively to that. "Allat is the name of a pagan goddess!" Well, the pagans worshipped Allat and they worshipped Allah; Allat is no more of a pagan goddess than Allah is a pagan god.

The Koran and Islamic traditions are specific that the use of Allah is a genderless God. Getting hung up on terminology gets us nowhere.

We live in a world where almost anything that men can do, women can too, and vice versa. Numerous women have been Prime Ministers, Presidents, CEOs, etc. I know of cases where the woman goes to work every day, and the man stays home and looks after the kids (often when the woman has achieved greater success in her career, or belongs to a higher-paying profession, compared to the man.) I don't think there's anything wrong with that; I think, if only one parent is to work, the one with the most income-generating capacity is a rational choice, regardless of whether that be the the man or the woman.

Yes, the world we live in functions more under Baha'i Law, than Judism, Christian nor Islamic.

One area in which the roles are definitely different is biological reproduction; but with ever-increasing advances in reproductive technology, this will become less true over time. Ever heard of a mouse called Kaguya - a mouse with two mothers. Interestingly, bimaternal mice live longer than mice produced the usual way. If we can do it to mice, there is no reason in principle why we couldn't do it to humans too (I guess they'd test it on larger animals first, like dogs, cats, cows, horses, chimpanzees, before trying it on humans). There is definitely a market for this technology - lesbian couples. (If bimaternal mice live longer, will bimaternal humans live longer too?) So men become an optional extra for the purposes of reproduction.

I clearly acknowledged some differences, and they are very real in the real world of live.

And why stop there? Male pregnancy? (Seen the film?). Well, it is going to be very difficult, so it is probably quite a way off, but there is no reason to suppose it is impossible, so we'll get there eventually. Male ectopic pregnancy is likely possible with today's technology, although so extraordinarily risky to both father and child, that no one in their right mind would attempt it. Probably one day we'll be able to grow uteri in vats from stem cells, for implantation into eager daddies-to-be.

Not practical.

Growing babies in vats, as in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World? Again, technically challenging, and probably decades away, but there seems nothing impossible about it in principle. There are people doing research in this area already; they get funding for their research on the basis of an artificial womb to save the lives of premature babies. But once they develop one, the babies will get more and more premature, and eventually they'll be implanting embryos. Maybe one day people will look back on viviparity as some obscene barbarism, just like they did in Huxley's book. Maybe one day prospective parents will log on to a website, design a genome that offers just the traits they are after, pop in their credit card number, then wait nine months for the baby to be home-delivered by UPS? Who knows what the future holds?

These hypothetical assumptions do no contribute anything to the discussion..The role of religion in Baha'i teachings is to provide moral and ethical guidance on the use of science, and most of the above is off the scale of possibilities based on the spiritual nature of humanity as described in the Baha'i writings..

The only other area where I see much difference between men and women is in activities requiring extremes of muscular performance, such as professional athletics and elite units in the armed forces. Here, the issue is simply that men have much more capacity to build muscle than women do, so the maximum of male physical performance will always exceed the maximum of the female, although many individual women are stronger than many individual men. I'm sure science can change things here too.

Yes, but again these hypotheticals do not add to the discussion.

So in which year will they elect women to the Universal House of Justice?

Your asking me? The nature of revelation from God was never meant to assent to the demands and desires of humans. Suffice to say the spirtual laws and teachings of the Baha'i Faith are thousands of years ahead of the archeac ancient religions of the past.

[robrecht]

Yes, apophatic theology is a part of Christianity, but the relationship between humanity and Creation is defined in Catophatic doctrine, and other elements of the claims of an exclusive personal relationship with God are Cataphatic in nature.

In my opinion all doctrinal definitions are subject to the same limitations imposed by apophatic theology on any utterance about God. I've never seen a true (yes, I'm being circular) theologian make exceptions to this, 'though obviously many people, especially fundamentalists, just assume that everything is cataphatic. It is common to assume or explicitly affirm that apophatic theology is simply superior to cataphatic (catastrophic?) theology or that a dialectic exists between the two. For Thomas Aquinas, for example, the apophatic principle is indeed the foundation for all speech about God, which is always analogical. Regardless of whether one is quoting scripture or defined doctrine or personal experience. And all human knowledge is limited by what can be imagined based on prior sense experience. This serves not to enslave but to liberate the ineffable object of our discourse and the unknown God. Note that I always balance the mystery of the transcendent with the greater mystery of immanence.

[shunyadragon]

In my opinion all doctrinal definitions are subject to the same limitations imposed by apophatic theology on any utterance about God. I've never seen a true (yes, I'm being circular) theologian make exceptions to this, 'though obviously many people, especially fundamentalists, just assume that everything is cataphatic. It is common to assume or explicitly affirm that apophatic theology is simply superior to cataphatic (catastrophic?) theology or that a dialectic exists between the two. For Thomas Aquinas, for example, the apophatic principle is indeed the foundation for all speech about God, which is always analogical. Regardless of whether one is quoting scripture or defined doctrine or personal experience. And all human knowledge is limited by what can be imagined based on prior sense experience. This serves not to enslave but to liberate the ineffable object of our discourse and the unknown God. Note that I always balance the mystery of the transcendent with the greater mystery of immanence.

Well, the reality is that the major denominations such as the Roman Church, Orthodox churches and most Protestant churches do not consider doctrines such as the Trinity subject to the human limitations imposed by an.apophatic theology. What you describe is far more akin to Baha'i theology.

[robrecht]

Well, the reality is that the major denominations such as the Roman Church, Orthodox churches and most Protestant churches do not consider doctrines such as the Trinity subject to the human limitations imposed by an.apophatic theology. What you describe is far more akin to Baha'i theology.

I disagree with your understanding of Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology. On what are you basing your view?