Women Priests, the thin end of the wedge?

[Cerealman]

And if it doesn't matter, why not change it to suit a particular need? The shape of the cross doesn't matter, either, and a certain amount of latitude gave Christians cultural inroads by adapting to culture.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]6952[/ATTACH]

Okay this whole "let's adapt to times" thing is silly.
You need to stop already.

[Spartacus]

Well, that's the vagueness that I'd referenced. The phenomenological aspects of a experience are bound up in so many things that it's impossible to say, in my opinion, that they can be divorced from the material human experience. As God is not material, His phenomenological experiences would have to be so distinct from the bundle of experiences we (currently) call "fatherhood" and "motherhood" that I can't see any serious reason to consider it necessary to refer to God as "Father" rather than "Mother" — they are both impossibly inept at describing what the relationship must, in reality be, that neither is particularly better than the other.

I have no particular problem with apophatic theology, but let's not deny the merits of a cataphatic approach, nor the role gendered language can legitimately play in the latter.

[Spartacus]

Okay this whole "let's adapt to times" thing is silly.
You need to stop already.

I agree with this sentiment.

If you want to talk about the divine as feminine, don't do so as a way of being hip and contemporary. It's not about proving that we can be relevant, and doing it in that way is the best way to ensure that the church remains utterly irrelevant. Do it because it is worthy for its own sake, because understanding how femininity reflects divine attributes brings people closer to the person of Christ.

[Sam]

Okay this whole "let's adapt to times" thing is silly.
You need to stop already.

It has nothing to do with adapting to a particular time or place. I don't have any problem with God being called a "He", just as I have no problem with God being called a "She". If anything, I'm recognizing that God exists outside of any particular time, place, or culture and so demanding that God be classified in any particular way is demanding that everyone adapt to a particular time, place or culture.

[Catholicity]

I like what Miss Widdecombe did. Left the Church became Catholic and pointed out the A She god cannot be God the Father. Smart woman.

[Sam]

I have no particular problem with apophatic theology, but let's not deny the merits of a cataphatic approach, nor the role gendered language can legitimately play in the latter.

But that is necessarily arguing that human or cultural characteristics can help us subjectively understand God, which is what I've been arguing all along. And should those human or cultural characteristics change then so too do our conceptualizations.

So if someone wants to refer to God as "She" while retaining the knowledge that we know God through both "masculine" and "feminine" traits then there's no legitimate reason to demand that person do otherwise. No one is arguing that God is feminine or that God's feminine traits overpower God's masculine traits. But some people, implicitly or almost-explicitly, seem to be arguing the converse.

[Sam]

This whole deal reminds me of Ray Bradbury's "The Fire Balloons," if anyone else has read it.

[Cerealman]

But that is necessarily arguing that human or cultural characteristics can help us subjectively understand God, which is what I've been arguing all along. And should those human or cultural characteristics change then so too do our conceptualizations.

So if someone wants to refer to God as "She" while retaining the knowledge that we know God through both "masculine" and "feminine" traits then there's no legitimate reason to demand that person do otherwise. No one is arguing that God is feminine or that God's feminine traits overpower God's masculine traits. But some people, implicitly or almost-explicitly, seem to be arguing the converse.

That's exactly what you're arguing by changing every thing from "he" to "she" because you think it's okay to "adapt".
If that's what you want you should probably keep Christianity out of it.

[fm93]

Is it okay if we call you 'girlfriend' just to make it easier to relate? Before you answer, think about whether or not you really want to have to reciprocate by trying to relate as a girl - because if we re-make you as a female we will start to expect you to behave in some ways as one. It bases the entire relationship on a predicated lie - which is not healthy for anyone.

Re-making God as female when He clearly, unequivocally identifies Himself as male is both disrespectful (just as my calling you 'girlie' would be) and deceitful. That's no way to 'relate' to anyone, least of all God.

But I am a human being who has X and Y chromosomes that physically make me masculine. Thus, I am definitively a man and not a woman, and this applies no matter where I go. God, on the other hand, is spirit and has no sex. And again, I'm not saying the Hebrews and eventually the Jews throughout the Abrahamic lineage should've referred to God as female if God self-presented as masculine to their culture. I'm wondering if God might've self-presented differently to a different culture.

A better example might be how I have an English name that I ask people to call me when I'm interacting with English-speakers, and a Chinese name that I ask people to call me when I'm interacting with Chinese-speakers. It wouldn't make much sense for me to ask people who only speak English to call me a Chinese name that they can't pronounce or write, would it?

[fm93]

This whole deal reminds me of Ray Bradbury's "The Fire Balloons," if anyone else has read it.

One of my favorite Bradbury stories, actually.

That's exactly what you're arguing by changing every thing from "he" to "she" because you think it's okay to "adapt".
If that's what you want you should probably keep Christianity out of it.

But that's NOT what he's arguing. He even explicitly said that he has no problem with God being called a he, and therefore he's not advocating that "he" be changed. He's just saying that it might be okay for people in different cultural contexts to think of God differently.

I mean, our names are a significant part of who we are, but they're also products of specific times/places/cultures and as such there's some leeway allowed. You don't self-identify as "Cerealman" when you're interacting face-to-face with people in your classes, do you?

[Cerebrum123]

I know this. I perused Tektonics and other apologetics websites for years too, remember?

Then why aren't you taking this into account with your arguments?

I thought the idea was that Jesus became incarnate as a man rather than a woman and referred to God in male terms because that's what the society was accustomed to, and Jesus subsequently decided to correct a few social norms by example. But within the context of Christian theology, let's suppose that instead of forming a covenant with Abraham, God formed a covenant with a woman whose descendants would eventually become a heavily matriarchal society--the one in which the incarnation would have to eventually occur. You believe Jesus still would've become incarnate as a man?

No, that's not "the idea", that's your idea which is refuted by what Jesus actually said and did. He didn't just correct a few things "by example", but often flipped even messianic expectations on their head. A warrior king that was human was what was expected, what happened was God incarnate who was crucified for the sins of the world.

As for your last question in that paragraph, yes, He would be incarnated as a man. He still had to undo the curse of sin brought on us by Adam. Again, this is far more about roles, and how God wanted to reveal Himself to mankind, not what mankind expected of God, or was used to.

This part wasn't addressed to me, but I just wanted to comment that I do know some Christians who do occasionally refer to God as a Mother, and that's always done in respect.

You would need to give an exact quote, and context for me to believe this. Every single time I have seen someone call God "Mother" it's always some kind of New Age hippie, or some kind of radical feminist who is unwilling to call God by the title He has revealed Himself as.

[Cow Poke]

I can't speak for others, but I HATE the Westernized depictions of Christ as a white Anglo-Saxon.

I hate even worse the depictions of Christ as a white Anglo-Saxon SISSY.

[Cow Poke]

But I am a human being who has X and Y chromosomes that physically make me masculine.

X and Y chromosomes don't make you masculine - they make you male.

[Sam]

That's exactly what you're arguing by changing every thing from "he" to "she" because you think it's okay to "adapt".
If that's what you want you should probably keep Christianity out of it.

If you're talking about when I use the feminine pronoun when dealing with a gender neutral subject ("If one is to do work, t'were best that she do it well"), that's a fairly common thing in academia, especially philosophy. I tend to go back and forth between using the masculine pronoun and the feminine pronoun, depending on various factors.

If that's a problem, I have to ask why you would consider it wrong or why using the masculine is the "right" way that shouldn't be changed.

[Cow Poke]

If you're talking about when I use the feminine pronoun when dealing with a gender neutral subject ("If one is to do work, t'were best that she do it well")

Then, why not just make it gender neutral? "If one is to do work, t'were best it be done well"

Why the gratuitous insertion of a female "one"?