Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Women Priests, the thin end of the wedge?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Women Priests, the thin end of the wedge?

    Referring to God as Queen of Heaven?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...alled-SHE.html

  • #2
    They've lost their saltiness, now let them hasten their own doom:

    The Church of England has suffered a dramatic slump in its followers, shocking new figures show. Between 2012 and 2014, the proportion of Britons identifying themselves as C of E or Anglican dropped from 21 per cent to 17 per cent – a fall of about 1.7 million people. Over the same period, the number of Muslims in Britain grew by nearly one million, according to a survey by the respected NatCen Social Research Institute.

    Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey warned last night that unless urgent action was taken, the Church was just ‘one generation away from extinction'

    Comment


    • #3
      The decline has been going on for a long time. I don't remember where CS Lewis said it, but he mentioned that once mandatory chapel attendance was dropped, the true state of people's hearts showed when they failed to show.
      Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Abigail View Post
        Referring to God as Queen of Heaven?

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...alled-SHE.html
        Divine wisdom, or Sophia, has historically been considered a "feminine" expression of a God who is neither male nor female. Sophia has, at times, been equated with the Holy Spirit.

        Referring to the Creator of All as a sexually-differentiated being is already absurd. We're just used to it.
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sam View Post
          Divine wisdom, or Sophia, has historically been considered a "feminine" expression of a God who is neither male nor female. Sophia has, at times, been equated with the Holy Spirit.

          Referring to the Creator of All as a sexually-differentiated being is already absurd. We're just used to it.
          Are you saying calling God the Father "he" is absurd?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            Are you saying calling God the Father "he" is absurd?
            Yes, when you think about the logic of it. Masculinity and patriarchy are concepts humans ascribe to God - and no judgement there. We need to fit the divine into a container we can even start to grasp. But God isn't male or female. He is Spirit. So calling God "She" instead of "He" changes nothing of substance.

            Unless you think God has a beard, there's no reason to huff about which gender labels get attributed to the Almighty.
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Sam View Post
              Yes, when you think about the logic of it. Masculinity and patriarchy are concepts humans ascribe to God - and no judgement there. We need to fit the divine into a container we can even start to grasp. But God isn't male or female. He is Spirit.
              We refer to God as "He" not because of his sexual identity but because of His identity as Father.

              Unless you think God has a beard, there's no reason to huff about which gender labels get attributed to the Almighty.
              There's every reason to reject attempts to make a god in the image they prefer, that is, someone they can call 'She' just to cater to radical Égalité.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Yes, when you think about the logic of it. Masculinity and patriarchy are concepts humans ascribe to God - and no judgement there. We need to fit the divine into a container we can even start to grasp. But God isn't male or female. He is Spirit. So calling God "She" instead of "He" changes nothing of substance.

                Unless you think God has a beard, there's no reason to huff about which gender labels get attributed to the Almighty.
                So you think that Jesus was both being absurd, and had no reason to call His Father "he"? Or do you just think He was calling His Father that because He was "used to it"?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  Unless you think God has a beard, there's no reason to huff about which gender labels get attributed to the Almighty.
                  Yeah, and why on earth would we 'attribute a gender label' to the MOTHER of Jesus, and call her a SHE?
                  "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    Yes, when you think about the logic of it. Masculinity and patriarchy are concepts humans ascribe to God - and no judgement there. We need to fit the divine into a container we can even start to grasp. But God isn't male or female. He is Spirit. So calling God "She" instead of "He" changes nothing of substance.

                    Unless you think God has a beard, there's no reason to huff about which gender labels get attributed to the Almighty.
                    Jesus clearly referred to God the Father as 'father'. While it would be a mistake to assume God has only masculine attributes it's also disrespectful to presume gender other than that specified by His Son.

                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                      So you think that Jesus was both being absurd, and had no reason to call His Father "he"? Or do you just think He was calling His Father that because He was "used to it"?
                      Within the context of Christian theology, Jesus became incarnate in a society in which patriarchy was deeply, deeply ingrained--so much so that women weren't even allowed to testify, as any elementary apologist familiar with Craig or Habermas knows. But that's not the context in which we currently find ourselves. Is there any reason one can't refer to God as a Mother?
                      Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                      I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                        Within the context of Christian theology, Jesus became incarnate in a society in which patriarchy was deeply, deeply ingrained--so much so that women weren't even allowed to testify, as any elementary apologist familiar with Craig or Habermas knows. But that's not the context in which we currently find ourselves. Is there any reason one can't refer to God as a Mother?
                        So when Jesus called himself God or when he spoke about the Father as a "man", he was wrong?
                        "Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
                        "And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
                        Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                          Within the context of Christian theology, Jesus became incarnate in a society in which patriarchy was deeply, deeply ingrained--so much so that women weren't even allowed to testify, as any elementary apologist familiar with Craig or Habermas knows. But that's not the context in which we currently find ourselves. Is there any reason one can't refer to God as a Mother?
                          Um, you do remember who Christ's first witnesses of His resurrection were, don't you?

                          It's not this black and white - and frankly, it's unhealthy. God is sometimes referred to in the feminine aspect (Jesus assumes this Himself when likening Himself to a hen). It's okay to understand the God is something more than merely male or female BUT it's disrespectful to change the reference on Him without grounds. Minus severe trauma (the one instance when I've recommended someone not focus so much on 'father' figure) there really aren't good grounds. Get over the misandry and deal with reality.

                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cerealman View Post
                            So when Jesus called himself God or when he spoke about the Father as a "man", he was wrong?
                            Huh? I really have no clue how this is relevant to what I just said. My point was that Jesus was speaking from within the context of a deeply patriarchal society, so it's understandable that to reach his audience, he spoke of God in male terms. But that's not the context of our society, so Jesus needn't have portrayed God in male terms to us.


                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            Um, you do remember who Christ's first witnesses of His resurrection were, don't you?
                            Yes, they were women. And as apologists like Craig and Habermas have repeatedly told us, this was significant because of how patriarchal that society apparently was back then. I mean, their main argument in mentioning this is that the gospels should be counted as historically trustworthy on this point because the idea of women being witnesses of something as profound as a resurrection would've fit the criterion of embarrassment.

                            It's not this black and white - and frankly, it's unhealthy. God is sometimes referred to in the feminine aspect (Jesus assumes this Himself when likening Himself to a hen). It's okay to understand the God is something more than merely male or female BUT it's disrespectful to change the reference on Him without grounds. Minus severe trauma (the one instance when I've recommended someone not focus so much on 'father' figure) there really aren't good grounds. Get over the misandry and deal with reality.
                            I'm not advocating for gender usage either way. I'm just asking if there's any real reason why someone couldn't refer to God in female terms if one so chose.
                            Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                            I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I was expecting this thread to be satire, given the title. Apparently not.


                              The bible has no qualms about using "mother" analogies for God or Jesus. eg:
                              “As a mother comforts her child, so will I [God] comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem.” (Isa. 66:13)
                              “Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I [God] will not forget you!” (Isa. 49:15)
                              “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!” (Matthew 23:37)

                              The creation account tells us that both masculinity and femininity stem from a reflection of God:
                              "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (Gen 1:27)

                              Presumably, while incarnate, Jesus had male chromosomes and male genitalia. But equally presumably God the 'Father' lacks such chromosomes or genitalia, and the more commonly masculine language that the bible uses reflects ancient social values connecting men with power, with the metaphor being that God is a powerful parent. But that doesn't appear to mean that God can't also express feminine characteristics, since the Bible also uses feminine language about God on multiple occasions.

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X