Don't Call God "He..."

[JimL]

Do you believe that Jesus - the man - never actually walked the ground in Israel?

There were certainly plenty of prophets bouncing around, there may or may not have been a Jesus amongst them, I don't know that for sure one way or the other, and neither do I care, because whether he did or not, he wasn't god any more than any of the other preachers were.

[Cow Poke]

There were certainly plenty of prophets bouncing around, there may or may not have been a Jesus amongst them, I don't know that for sure one way or the other, and neither do I care, because whether he did or not, he wasn't god any more than any of the other preachers were.

You're proving what a dummy you are.
While there are plenty of people who don't believe the historical Jesus was the Son of God, there are very few who believe he never existed at all.

[JimL]

You're proving what a dummy you are.
While there are plenty of people who don't believe the historical Jesus was the Son of God, there are very few who believe he never existed at all.

There's that comprehension problem rearing its ugly head again, CP. C'mon, you can do better.

[Cow Poke]

There's that comprehension problem rearing its ugly head again, CP. C'mon, you can do better.

I can do better than you without even waking up!

[Sparko]

There's that comprehension problem rearing its ugly head again, CP. C'mon, you can do better.

JimL, you and Tassman arguing that God doesn't exist but was made up by a patriarchal tribe is completely off topic.

The fact is that the church's in question believe in God, that he exists and that he revealed himself to mankind. Given that, and that he tells us to address him as a male and Father directly in several places in the bible, it means that he wants us to think of him as a male figure. As all of the people who are attempting to change this are believers, trying to argue that God doesn't exist is a complete non-sequitur.

[JimL]

JimL, you and Tassman arguing that God doesn't exist but was made up by a patriarchal tribe is completely off topic.

The fact is that the church's in question believe in God, that he exists and that he revealed himself to mankind. Given that, and that he tells us to address him as a male and Father directly in several places in the bible, it means that he wants us to think of him as a male figure. As all of the people who are attempting to change this are believers, trying to argue that God doesn't exist is a complete non-sequitur.

No not really, we're both saying that the bible is fantasy, perhaps a difference is that they want to remake the fantasy in their own image. I don't.

[Sparko]

No not really, we're both saying that the bible is fantasy, perhaps a difference is that they want to remake the fantasy in their own image. I don't.

No they are not saying the bible is fantasy. They are just trying to justify their worldly views and force them back into the bible.

[ke7ejx]

I posted about this on my Facebook page yesterday because as an Episcopalian, I was deeply concerned about the biblical and theological implications that really do border on heresy if it is pushed throughout the Church. My confirmation sponsor was kind enough to point out three things:

1) the Episcopal News Service (www.episcopalnewsservice.org) hasn't made an announcement on this which they definitely would.
2) The Diocese of Washington (www.edow.org) has also no made an announcement that they have made this decision.
3) The Diocese of Washington cannot change or update the Book of Common Prayer, even in their own diocese. Only the Primate of the Anglican Communion can mess with the prayer book.

He also made the valid point that standard news services rarely if ever get religious decision accurately. This made me feel a bit better. If this ever became an official, churchwide practice, I would leave the Episcopal Church and never look back. I've been drawn in by heresy before and I will not be drawn in by it again.

[Sparko]

I posted about this on my Facebook page yesterday because as an Episcopalian, I was deeply concerned about the biblical and theological implications that really do border on heresy if it is pushed throughout the Church. My confirmation sponsor was kind enough to point out three things:

1) the Episcopal News Service (www.episcopalnewsservice.org) hasn't made an announcement on this which they definitely would.
2) The Diocese of Washington (www.edow.org) has also no made an announcement that they have made this decision.
3) The Diocese of Washington cannot change or update the Book of Common Prayer, even in their own diocese. Only the Primate of the Anglican Communion can mess with the prayer book.

He also made the valid point that standard news services rarely if ever get religious decision accurately. This made me feel a bit better. If this ever became an official, churchwide practice, I would leave the Episcopal Church and never look back. I've been drawn in by heresy before and I will not be drawn in by it again.

OK following the trail, it leads to this blog post:

EDOW-Convention-700x475.jpg

DC Episcopalians Opt for Open Borders and Transgenderism, Eschew Gendered Pronouns for God

A trifecta of resolutions introduced and passed by the Episcopal Diocese of Washington’s annual convention confirm a further politicized and progressive direction in which the denomination is headed.

Embracing progressive themes, delegates to The 123rd Diocesan Convention approved legislative proposals “On Becoming a Sanctuary Diocese: Offering Sacred Welcome to Immigrants,” “On Inclusion of Transgender People,” and “On the Gendered Language for God” at the Washington National Cathedral on Saturday, January 27.

Resolutions were passed in under one hour and were introduced by a small number of delegates. The Rev. Kimberly Lucas, Rector of St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., and a graduate of liberal Union Theological Seminary in New York, sponsored all three resolutions. Two of the three resolutions were submitted by The Rev. Alex Dyer, rector of St. Thomas’ Episcopal Parish in Washington, D.C. Dyer was briefly notable last year on social media for wrapping banners around construction fences at St. Thomas in which an image of a face-palming Jesus was accompanied by political messages including the tagline “a progressive church for a progressive city.”

According to statistics made available by the Episcopal Church, St. Thomas has declined precipitously in the past five years, shrinking from a weekly attendance of 150 down to 75 (-50%). St. Margaret’s has similarly declined from approximately 240 attendees in 2006 down to 130 (-46%).

In the past decade, weekly attendance in the Diocese of Washington has declined 17 percent. Meanwhile, baptisms have dropped 35 percent and weddings have declined 39 percent. In April, the diocesan clergy conference will hear from an organization assisting churches “to move from a place of plateau or decline to sustained congregational health.”

“Sacred Welcome”

Resolution #1 “On Becoming a Sanctuary Diocese: Offering Sacred Welcome to Immigrants,” was endorsed by the Race and Social Justice Task Force of the Diocese. It read:

Resolved, that the people of the Diocese of Washington, as disciples of Jesus Christ and persons of faith and conscience, take seriously the biblical mandate not to wrong or oppress the alien in our midst, and in faithfulness to our Baptismal Covenant, oppose the policies of the incumbent Executive Branch that target undocumented immigrants for deportation while also placing undue restrictions on refugees seeking safe haven in the U.S.

The resolution was amended to remove reference to the presidency and to change “alien” to “immigrant” out of concern that the former term had a negative connotation (resolutions can be viewed in full here.)

Resolution drafters asserted, “Its passage would send a message of solidarity to the hundreds of immigrants in our midst.”

Transgender Persons

Resolution #2, “On Inclusion of Transgender People” calls upon the diocese to “encourage all parishes to remove all obstacles to full participation in congregational life by making all gender-specific facilities and activities fully accessible, regardless of gender identity and expression.”

Resolution drafters cited the Episcopal Church Baptismal Covenant wording “Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?” as a basis for transgender advocacy. The statement quickly dived into intersectionality theory, charging “that the intersections of racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia give rise to discrimination” and that “Fixed boundaries of gender identity are being challenged and churches need to respond.”

The resolution was adopted without debate or discussion.

Gendered Language

Resolution #3, “On the Gendered Language for God,” related to Book of Common Prayer revisions that will potentially be considered by the national church at General Convention this summer:

“…eliminate, when possible, all gendered references to God and to replace them with gender neutral language, and if necessary, to alternate gendered titles when referring to God.”

The resolution was amended to read “…if revision of the Book of Common Prayer is authorized, to utilize expansive language for God from the rich sources of feminine, masculine, and non-binary imagery for God found in Scripture and tradition and, when possible, to avoid the use of gendered pronouns for God.”

“Over the centuries our language and our understanding of God has continued to change and adapt,” the resolution drafters asserted. “Our current gender roles shape and limit our understanding of God. By expanding our language for God, we will expand our image of God and the nature of God. Our new Book of Common Prayer needs to reflect the language of the people and our society … language should not be limited by gendered pronouns when avoidable.”

Clergy delegate The Rev. Linda R. Calkins from St. Bartholomew’s Episcopal Church in Laytonsville, Maryland, brandished a copy of The Inclusive Bible: The First Egalitarian Translation and asked when the Episcopal Church would join with those behind the 2004 translation.

Reading from Genesis Chapter 17, in which God tells Abraham “I am El Shaddai,” Calkins asserted “if we are going to be true to what El Shaddai means, it means God with breasts.”

El Shaddai is traditionally translated to mean “God Almighty,” but The Inclusive Bible reads “..and God said, I am the breasted one.”

“Having studied much feminist theology in my masters’ degrees, I wrote a thesis on liberation and freedom and non-equality in feminist theology and existential counseling,” Calkins told the convention. “And I am still waiting for the Episcopal Church to come to the place where all people feel that they can speak God’s name. Many, many women that I have spoken with over my past almost 20 years in ordained ministry have felt that they could not be a part of any church because of the male image of God that is systemic and that is sustained throughout our liturgies. Many of us are waiting and need to hear God in our language, in our words and in our pronouns.”

https://juicyecumenism.com/2018/01/2...-pronouns-god/

[seer]

I don't believe he was suggesting anything was wrong with it seer, he was just explaining why your god was conceived of as a male and not a female.

You think that Tass does not believe that men having supreme authority over women is wrong? I'm glad you don't agree that it is wrong...

[Psychic Missile]

Also Israel being a Patriarchal society is BECAUSE of God. He set it up that way.

You are trying to rationalize your view with no evidence. God doesn't change his nature. If he wanted to be seen as male 2000 years ago he does today too. God wants us to worship him on his terms, not ours. We don't get to just make up things that are convenient or we think are nice about God because that is the current view of society. Throughout the bible God tells us to not conform to the world, to not be caught up in what the world thinks is right and wrong, that we are ambassadors of God's kingdom and that we are to be holy and that we do not belong to the world.

How could God have set up ancient Judaic culture to be patriarchal?

I'm asking what the purpose of God's actions was, which is an entirely ordinary question among Christians regarding any and all aspects of the religion. I don't see any other reason for an ageless, formless, all-powerful, all-knowing entity to gender itself outside of appealing to a culture in a specific place at a specific time. If you have any other reason in mind, I'd be happy to hear it. You mentioned in another reply "[God] tells us to address him as a male and Father directly in several places in the bible", and that's wrong. God told a certain population 2000 years ago to address him as a male. The lack of modern canon has required Christians to ponder God's intentions and desires in regard to all sorts of issues and scenarios. Be careful you don't prioritize your interpretation of your religion over God's intention.

[Tassman]

Great. so you admit God is male.

I'm saying that the concept of the Hebrew god developed at a time when men were the supreme authority and women were the followers. So, of course a god made in man's image would reflect this. God would be male.

[Tassman]

What is wrong with that, it is what we see in our closest primate cousins. It's just natural...

Unlike our close primate cousins, the human primate has the capacity to evolve socially. What was once culturally acceptable in primitive societies is no longer acceptable in many instances today...including the subjugation of women.

[seer]

Unlike our close primate cousins, the human primate has the capacity to evolve socially. What was once culturally acceptable in primitive societies is no longer acceptable in many instances today...including the subjugation of women.

What do you mean evolve? Does evolve mean better? Why is change better? For whom?

[Sparko]

How could God have set up ancient Judaic culture to be patriarchal?

read the freaking Bible PM! God was with them from the beginning. He chose their leaders. Remember Abraham? Moses? the Laws he gave them?

I'm asking what the purpose of God's actions was, which is an entirely ordinary question among Christians regarding any and all aspects of the religion. I don't see any other reason for an ageless, formless, all-powerful, all-knowing entity to gender itself outside of appealing to a culture in a specific place at a specific time. If you have any other reason in mind, I'd be happy to hear it. You mentioned in another reply "[God] tells us to address him as a male and Father directly in several places in the bible", and that's wrong. God told a certain population 2000 years ago to address him as a male. The lack of modern canon has required Christians to ponder God's intentions and desires in regard to all sorts of issues and scenarios. Be careful you don't prioritize your interpretation of your religion over God's intention.

I don't have to explain God's reasons to you. We know what he wanted and did. His motivation is his own. God told his people that he wanted to be called Father. Jesus whom we Christians follow, called on his Father and our Father. He told us how to pray to "our Father" so yeah since we are still his people we are to address him as our Father. He doesn't change his nature. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.