Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Lots of religions still worship devine beings as women. The Greeks,
    the Romans, the Norse all had female members of their lists of gods.
    The Norse religion is not dead BTW. It is still practiced in parts
    of Iceland. In some ways the various panthions of gods probably
    represent some aspects of the one true God. In other cases they just
    represent ideas people have of what a god should be.
    
    God does not, I don't think, have gender. At least not the way we do.
    It may be that the image of God as male was God making His religion
    more easily acceptable to a male dominated culture. Perhaps He would
    reviel things differently today. I don't know. In any case refering
    to God as He/Father/etc is a matter of convienience in English where
    we don't have sutable nutral words.
    
    My main problem with the new sudden use of She/Her to describe God is
    that it is policitally motivated (generally) rather then religiously
    motivated.
    
    Historically, as a point of interest, cultures that worshipped a
    Goddess where not necessarily less male dominated then "God"
    worshipers. It was more a case of the role that the culture/religion
    defined for their idea of god then the god defining their own role.
    
    I don't believe that God is a human invention though I do believe that
    many gods and godesses were. Cultures that tended to be war like
    invented male gods   while aguraian oones invented female ones. This
    is still the case in parts of the world. It's because growing things
    is more closely related to women and baring children. While men are
    left out of that process to a large extent so a male fertility god
    seems a little not quite right.
                                                               
    As for both sexes being made in Gods image, wasn't man made in God's
    image and woman made in mans? I'll have to go back and look.
    
    	Alfred 

    in re image..
    
    in one version, Adam is made first and Eve is made from him.
    in the second version God creats humans male and female in his
    image.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
           IMHO....God has *NO* gender.
    
    
    Dave

As I said elsewhere, I genderally avoid refering to God as "he" or "she", or 
"it" for that matter.

In the Episcopal liturgy, one standard response is 
	"It is right to give him thanks and praise."
A proposed new wording for this is
	"It is right to give our thanks and praise."

Not only does this remove the gender specific term, (which is generally 
considered sexually specific as well) but I find it much more personalizing as
well.  We aren't just giving God some generic thanks and praise, we are giving
God our own personal thanks and praise. 

So, while some people fear that "inclusive language" will dilute the faith, I
find that when well handled it can greatly enhance one's relationship. 

I do accept that God has masculine aspects (as my Father in Heaven) as well as 
feminine aspects (as a mother hen sheltering her chicks).  I'd be hard pressed
to accept one as more allegorical than the other.  They are all attempts to 
express an aspect of the Infinite God in useful terms.

Peace,

Jim

    Well, Jesus who is the second person in one God, defined God as a
    father, so  father is the image that I have of God.

    My definition of a father is;
    one who is strong both physically and emotionally.
    One who is wise.
    The one who provides for our needs.
    and one who is loving.

    Now of course a mother could be all of these, but they would still not be
    fathers.

    With Fathers Day coming up this week-end, perhaps we should give thanks
    to God who is our almighty father for all that he has done for us.


    Peace
    Jim

    
    i am no Hebrew scholar...however, doesn't the word
    
    Elohim (the plural of eloah) imply the plurality
    of God..i don't think it indicates a gender.
    
    despite what others say, since the Constitution of this
    country guarantees my right to worship in the manner of
    my choosing (and in the choice of words), i will continue
    to refer to God as i see fit.
    
    further no person here or anyplace else has the moral right
    to tell others whether or not they are or are not correct in
    their beliefs...fine, if you want to tell us what you believe
    but please refrain from judgmental comments on what others
    hold to be true.
    
    peter
    
          

    Jim:

         Your definition of a father is quite an accurate description
        of what my mother was like.
         Love, compassion, wisdom and strength can be the characteristics
        of a man or a woman.


                                                               Mike

>    in one version, Adam is made first and Eve is made from him.

    Genesis Chapter 2 right? I refer to this as the long form.

>    in the second version God creats humans male and female in his
>    image.

    Genesis 5:1,2 right? As I see it this is the short form. Also first
    it says god created man "in the likeness of God" in verse 1. In
    verse 2 it says "male and female created He them". It doesn't say
    in His image again. Verse 1 is all masculine pronouns. Verse 2 is
    plural. We could micro analyze it to death. And of course being made
    like something that was made like God is more or less being made like
    God so it's a minor point perhaps. 

    Is there an other version I'm missing?

    		Alfred

    that's what I was remembering Alfred
    
    BJ

    RE: God's Gender
    
    I believe God is androgynous, both male and female.
    
    He is both Father and Mother and manifests in created beings as Sons
    and daughters.  
    
    I believe the reason we generally identify God as masculine is because
    of the attributes and role the masculine part of God plays, as opposed
    the atttributes and role of the feminine part of God.  The Father God,
    is the Creator role and we worship the Creator.
    
    You'll note that in Ancient Egypt Osiris and Isis were worshipped at
    different temples, and each had unique functions.  There's something in
    this that relates to why we have primarily the Masculine aspect of God
    in the Bible.  I think there is more doctrine somewhere that speaks to
    fecundity and nurturing the earth, some Isis Doctrine, that we are
    missing today...we surely do neglect the earth.
    
    Playtoe

re;8

    Mike:

>         Your definition of a father is quite an accurate description
>        of what my mother was like.
>         Love, compassion, wisdom and strength can be the characteristics
>        of a man or a woman.


    Your right and I did say that a mother could possess these as well.
    However, there is love of a father and love of a mother for their
    children. Although they both love their children, the love they give is 
    different, just as their wisdom and strength is different.
    
    Peace
    Jim

        Last night I attended the Commissioning of the Lay Ministers at the
    Cathredral. The Mass liturgy which was developed by the Class under the 
    guidance of the instructors who are mainly Nuns, used EVERY opportunity 
    to refer to God as She. 
    
        I found it offensive, not because I don't believe God encompasses
    all masculine and feminine qualities, but because it seemed so  socially 
    and politically motivated. The use of the term, "She", did not at all 
    enhance my 'understanding' of God, in fact, I think it obscured it further. 
    
        My friend who was commissioned argues that we should have liturgy and 
    the Bible (etc.) changed so that where it says "Father" it would read, 
    "Father/Mother" and where God is refered to as "He, it would be changed to 
    "He/She". 
    
        An article in Time mentioned a Catholic Parish that had a female 
    "Sophia" on the crucifix. It seems that even Jesus is not safe from
    Untruth.
    
        Jesus, who knows God "the Father" better than any other human, did not
    see the need to refer to God as 'mother' or 'her' or 'she'. All of Jesus' 
    references and most by the Holy Spirit (the Bible is the inspired Word of 
    God given by the Holy Spirit) refer to God the Father in the masculine. 
    The QUALITITES all three persons of the Holy Trinity have contain both 
    masculine and feminine elements.
    
        The Word of God was given for all time for our Salvation with imagery
    which is supposed to comunicate to us. 'God the Father' is as Jesus and
    the Holy Spirit expressed it and there was no mention that their
    expressions would somehow fail to be "suitable" about the year 2000
    A.D.
    
        Personally, I think it is a movement for social, political, and 
    temporal power which is driving this aided by a lot of encouragement
    by the Evil One. It has grown out of the Feminist Movement which has 
    thrown out the teachings of Christ in favor of militant solutions, and 
    which has born such bad fruits over the years as the breakdown of the 
    family, sexual liberalism, abortion, homosexuality, and the great "Me
    Generation" Materialism. 
    
        These are pretty blunt statements; of course the Feminist Movement
    has brought about some marginal good, but at great cost to the family
    and with the sacrifice of Christian values.
    
        The He/She movement, I think, is a prideful and anti-Christian.
    
        This is, to me, different than the other areas of making the
    language of the Bible inculsive. I welcome the changes that change
    "men" to "people", because it was very clear to the Church down 
    through the ages that this was the meaning intended all along. 
    Also, the changes could be done without creating monstrosities like
    "Father/Mother".
    
    For the Glory of God the Father,
    
    Mary
    
        
     
     

Note 253.16

>    Do you enjoy being a scoffer?

Oh, sometimes.  But, alas, I'll probably never be anything more than a
weekend scoffer. 8-}

>    Masculine and feminine transcend maleness and femaleness.  Inanimate
>    objects have no reproductive organs, either, yet they have gender. 
>    English is one of the languages that does not exhibit gender for other 
>    than male or female.  

By your own admission then, the problem lies not with God's gender, but
with the peculiarities and limitations of language.

>    If you are not Christian, please reveal yourself so.

I am.  Jesus is Sovereign.

>    as this would please and lend credence to the pantheists and sophists.

Heaven forbid!  I can't imagine anything worse than that! ;-}

Richard

    in re .13

    I don't agree with you, I think by reclaiming the feminine side of
    the Divine we are getting back to our earliest spiritual roots.

    I'd recommend reading 'The Chalice and the Blade' by Riane Eisler,
    published by Harper & Row, 1987 ISBN 0-06-250287-5. The book 
    evaluates post World War II archaeological studies and clearly
    shows the earliest civilizations were peaceful, non warlike, 
    invented weaving, agriculture, pottery, etc. were non hierarchical
    and worshiped the Divine in the feminine aspect.

    The later coming of the nomadic, warlike, herding nations, subjugated
    these peoples, destroyed their advanced civilization and supplanted
    the female image of the Divine who was peaceful, and caring with
    a male image who was war-like and cruel.

    There is a strong possibility that early 'Eden'like tales refer to
    this peaceful time.

    Christ dealt with the people he came to in the language they understood.
    Yet he included women in his ministry in ways that were totally 
    unacceptable to the old testament view of women.

    To me, including the female in worship, expands my understanding
    of my faith and is not 'political' but a reaffirmation of an old
    wisdom, largely suppressed in the last 3,000 years.

    Most of the women who I've met who worship the Divine in the form
    of 'the Goddess' are very spiritual women and are very sincere
    in their beliefs.

    Bonnie


    P.S. Jupiter::Nelson

    since you found it so 'offensive' to use female terms for the Divine...
    can you imagine how it has been for women for 3,000 years for only male
    terms to be used?

    RE: .14  Bonnie,
    
                      Well I disagree with *ALL* of ya!  How can God have
    gender when God invented it?  We call God "he", IMHO, because of
    tradition.....much like a ship is called "she".  I just can't think of
    God having a sex.....maybe I'm strange.  ;-)   Could be like thinking
    of my parents having sex.....yech!...and yet I'm pretty sure they did.
    
     ;^)
    Dave

    My feeling is that if people are offended or shook up by my use of the
    feminine gender when referring to God, then I must be doing something
    right.  :-)

    I strongly recommend the book "Women and the Word", by Sandra M.
    Schneiders, for some excellent insight into the value of using female
    images when referring to God.  The book comes from a 1986 lecture at
    St. Mary's College, and is published by Paulist Press.  Here are a
    couple of interesting quotes:

        As women have become aware of their inferior status and actual
        oppression in family, society, and Church, they have also become
        aware that the gender of God, God's presumed masculinity, has
        functioned as the ultimate religious legitimation of the unjust
        social structures which victimize women. (page 5)

        Once consciousness is raised, women Christians can find themselves
        impaled on the horns of a dilemma.  Either they can continue as
        Christians, accepting the spiritual consequences of their lack of
        resemblance to God and Christ and their consequence inferiority to
        and spiritual dependence on men in the Church..., or they can
        abandon Christianity as a hopelessly patriarchal religion and seek
        their spiritual home in a religious tradition in which women and
        women's experiences are central and valued.  Unless educated and
        aware women can find a creative and liberating understanding of God
        and of Jesus, one which does not glorify masculinity at the expense
        of femininity and does not justify the oppression of women by men,
        they have no future in institutional Christianity.  (page 7)

    The author then goes into a detailed argument in favor of the use of
    feminine images for God.  This argument begins with a cogent discussion
    of the power of imagination in conceiving of images of God, and points
    out that it is not abstract ideas (such as merely stating that God is
    Spirit) that influences our religious imagination, but rather
    "languages, images, interpersonal experience, symbolism, art":

        I would like to suggest that just as the self and world images can
        be healed, so can the God-image.  It cannot be healed, however, by
        rational intervention alone.  Repeating the theological truth that
        God is Spirit may correct our ideas but a healthy spirituality
        requires a healing of the imagination which will allow us not only
        to think differently about God but to experience God differently. 
        (page 19).

    She then addresses the gender of God, as defined in the Bible.  She
    points out that while the Bible uses mostly male imagery, it is not
    exclusively so, and there are examples of female imagery.  She
    discusses:

        o The "Maleness" of God in the Old Testament
        o Jesus's experience and presentation of God
        o The Maleness of Jesus

    In her concluding paragraph, she writes:

        Important as correct ideas about God may be, it is the imagination
        which governs our experience of God because it is the imagination
        which creates our God-image and our self-image.  Consequently, if
        the demonic influence of patriarchy on the religious imagination is
        to be exorcised, if the neurotic repression of the feminine
        dimension of divinity is to be overcome, the imagination must be
        healed.  It is absolutely imperative that language, which appeals
        to the imagination through metaphor, symbol, gesture, and music, be
        purified of patriarchal overtones, male exclusive references to
        God, and the presentation of male religious experience as
        normative.  We must learn to speak to and about God in the feminine;
        we must learn to image God in female metaphors; we must learn to
        present the religious experience of women as autonomously valid. 
        The therapy of the imagination is an affair of language in the
        broad sense of the term, and it is crucial that we cease to
        trivialize this issue and begin the long process of conversion from
        the idolatry of maleness toward the worship of the true God in
        spirit and in truth.

    This is a powerfully written work, and I recommend it to anyone who is
    interested in the issue of the gender of God.

    -- Mike

	Re: .14

        Bonnie,
    
        >>  To me, including the female in worship, expands my understanding
            of my faith and is not 'political' but a reaffirmation of an old
            wisdom, largely suppressed in the last 3,000 years.

	    The old wisdom is pagan wisdom. The Old Testament is filled with
        the struggle to cast off pagan gods. God has a lot to say about
        such pagan gods and none of it encourages His people to adopt
	them. Everyone has a free choice to choose to worship the "Earth 
	Goddess" or whatever, but please leave it out of Christianity where 
	it does not belong.

	    The teachings of Christ concerning women is not demeaning. We
        don't need language change as much as actually living the Way
        of Christ as given in the Gospels in our male/female relationships. 

	    I would rather support a movement to educate men to understand that 
	since God the Father and Jesus showed compassion, love, sharing, and
	sacrificial giving as part as their masculine expression that ALL
        MEN should consider that these 'traits' are part of THEIR MALENESS.
	To promote God as female just gives men more licence to stick with
	the agressive characteristics of their nature since they can then
	say that the compassionate (etc.) qualities are just being 
	expressed by the 'female' part of God and are, therefore, need not 
	be part of their humanity.

	    Also, part of this 'female God' movement seems to be very willing 
	to deny the God of the Old Testament entirely. (Too patriarchal, too
	demanding, agressive, warlike, etc.). It appears that the 'movement'
	wishes to entirely re-make the 'image' of God to their desired
	concept of God. This, in effect, denies the testimony of Holy Scripture
	concerning God and would make it invalid to those adopting such
	changes. In my opinion, this can easily lead to heretical doctrines.


    >>  Most of the women who I've met who worship the Divine in the form
    >>  of 'the Goddess' are very spiritual women and are very sincere
    >>  in their beliefs.


	Yes, but it does not make them right, particularly if they find it
        necessary to re-define God in ways that the Holy Spirit has not
	revealed.  The ONE reference cited in Genesis in the Creation
	story and the references to Wisdom in the feminine does not give
	licence to throwing out the rest of OT revelation concerning God.


    >>    P.S. Jupiter::Nelson

    >>    since you found it so 'offensive' to use female terms for the 
	  Divine...can you imagine how it has been for women for 3,000 
	  years for only male terms to be used?

	Bonnie, you apparently missed my signature....MARY Nelson.
	I am not and never have been offended by Male terms for the
	Divine. I'm happy to have Christ at the Head and I'm happy to
	defer to the Will of God. The Blessed Virgin Mary is my ideal
	model of what women should be and I believe that when women
	regain that 'right' relationship that she so perfectly lived
	then we will give God the greatest Glory possible in our own
	lives. 

	    Before becoming a Christian, for about 10 years, I was very
	much involved in the 'feminist agenda' in my own life. Finally
	I came to see that the personal qualities that I was adopting
	did not promote life and love in myself or with others and 
	particularly not with men. 

	    The 'Goddess' movement is equally a "closed club" primarily 
	for women only this time excluding men because they don't have the 
	"inner God-knowledge" that women possess about their female god.

	Peace of Jesus,

	Mary

    Thinking about this...
    
    Jesus came down to be sacrificed for all our sins, male and female
    alike. He also must have experienced everything we as a human race
    would do, otherwise how could he be an intercessor. However, he was
    male, so how did he experience life as a female? How can he be an
    intercessor for one half of the human population?
    
    The mind boggles.
    
    Pete.

    in re .17
    
    the old wisdom about God/Goddess is not *pagan* that is a word
    used by the victors, by the oppressors to deny the feminine side
    of spirituality..
    
    the lie that no one really knew the Divine until the time of the
    Hebrews has been used to deny all earlier wisdom by painting it
    as non Godly, heretical, pagan... etc...
    
    I won't listen to those lies any longer.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .19   Bonnie,
    
                         When I use the word "he" to describe God, I use it
    because of a traditional usage and not to deny "the feminine side of
    spirituality..".  Using the word "he" just helps me break up the
    sentence structure so I don't say "God" every other word.
    
    
    Dave

    understood, Dave, and I use the word that way too, using 'Divine'
    God/Goddess is (as I've found in recent notes) rather awkward.
    
    BJ

>    the old wisdom about God/Goddess is not *pagan* that is a word
>    used by the victors, by the oppressors to deny the feminine side
>    of spirituality..

	How utterly PC of you to say. :-) There is no doubt some old wisdom
	is not pagan. However, I do not believe that people who use
	the word pagan are either oppressors or denying the feminine side
	of spirituality. I am starting to believe that some people who use the
	term Goddess are attempting to deny the "feminine" side of men. Or
	at least to imply that men are less complete or less "good" then women.

			Alfred

    Thanks Alfred,
    
    and hugs, I promise to never deny *your* femininity..
    
    Bonnie

    If you think that God is exclusively masculine, and you believe in the
    Bible, you ought to take a good look at what Wisdom says about herself
    in her book.  
    
    If you honor and respect Mother Mary, you ought to look into what is
    implied by the doctrine of the Assumption.
    
    DR

    God is the fullness of yin and yang.
    
    So there, I didn't use male or female to describe God.
    
    Peace
    Jim

    re:24
    Dr,
    
    Err..ah could you tell us what is implied by the doctrine of the 
    Assumption ? Perhaps in anohter note ?
    
    Jim
    

| Or at least to imply that men are less complete or less "good" then women.

	I thought the Bible was used in the oppisite fashion for years! :-)


Glen

    RE: .27
    
                     In most of my Bible classes I tell the men that in
    the Bible that it took satan to "tempt" a woman and it only took a
    woman to "tempt" man.......something to think about when they want to
    start on about how men are so much better than women. :-)
    
    
    Dave
    

    RE: .13

    >    Personally, I think it is a movement for social, political, and 
    > temporal power which is driving this aided by a lot of encouragement
    > by the Evil One. It has grown out of the Feminist Movement which has 
    > thrown out the teachings of Christ in favor of militant solutions, and 
    > which has born such bad fruits over the years as the breakdown of the 
    > family, sexual liberalism, abortion, homosexuality, and the great "Me
    > Generation" Materialism. 

    	Feminism responsible for all this?  Wow!  (pardon my sarcasm)

    	This reply diverges from the topic, but the above paragraph
    	represents what I believe is a commonly held view among some
    	people, a view that I disagree with.  

    	First of all, sexual liberalism, homosexuality, abortion and
    	materialism are hardly new.  Such things have existed through-
    	out history and have been accepted and/or rejected at different
    	times and among different cultures since the dawn of civilization.
	
    	Secondly, these issues are different from one another.  My
    	own view is:  sexual liberalism can be a problem for immature
    	and/or insecure individuals (I prefer long term monogamy myself).
    	Homosexuality is perfectly natural and acceptable for a minority
    	of the population who have such an orientation.  Abortion is a
    	problem.  I disagree with it and would encourage a woman not to
    	have one but I believe it is a personal choice.  Materialism is
    	good for an economy to develop but ultimately is a threat to
    	the continued well being of humanity (it is a selfish and wasteful
    	"ism"), not to mention the environment.

    	Thirdly, although we've seen increased visibility of the
    	*problems associated with* the above issues at the same time
    	feminism has grown, the fact of all these things occurring at
    	the same time does NOT prove a cause-effect relationship.

    	Frankly, I think generations of "traditional families" built
    	on the suppression of women(*) and gay men were bound to break
    	down as people became more aware of their condition.  But the
    	break down wasn't *caused* by this enlightenment, it was caused
    	by the steadfast refusal of traditionalists to adapt.  To accept
    	change.  To allow ANY divergence from strict, narrow, unalterable
    	gender roles.  Such artificially imposed straight-jackets are
    	what led to an explosion of rebellious activity.....often excessive
    	activity.  At least this is my interpretation.

    	I do not think there is anything wrong with traditional families.
    	I come from a traditional family (one that truly lived up to the
    	word "family" and didn't throw me out when I decided to be honest
    	about my orientation).  In fact, I tend to think it is perhaps the 
    	best *model* for raising children.  That doesn't mean however that 
    	there can't be exceptions.  Perfectly valid exceptions.  The problem 
    	is only when we insist that EVERYONE must fit "the" traditional model.  

    	Everyone does not fit the model.  There has NEVER been a time when 
    	everyone fit "the" model and I seriously doubt if there will ever be 
    	such a time.
    		
    	With regards to the topic, as a non-Christian, what people choose
    	to do with the Bible isn't my concern....except for the fact that
    	I believe it is a marvelous piece of literature and I generally
    	frown on attempts to change works of literature.  If people choose
    	to re-write prayer books and deliver sermons such that there are
    	references to God as "she"....well I don't see anything wrong with it.

    	Thanks for listening....

    	/Greg

    RE:  .28
    
    Yes.  C.G. Jung observed that no woman ever believed her husband was
    superman. (Memories, Dreams, Reflections)
    
    DR

    re:28
    Yeahaaa, Satan knows where the path of least resisitance is, so why
    waste his time on the tough stuff.-:)
    
    Jim

    I rather like the NRSV Bible,in that it tries to avoid he/she
    references.
    
    By the way,one of the reasons that I left the Roman Catholic Church
    was because of the lack of women as priests.
    
    Also....I am quite removed from the PC group of people,and consider
    myself mainly a "conservative". You just can't "lump" the woman's
    movement/family values/gay's /abortion all into the same package.
    Each issue for me,and others is separate and has to be decided on
    its's own.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .32    Jim,
    
                     I have just one thing to say to you......
    
           
                            *INCOMMING*
                               :-)
    
    Dave

Article 1534 of clari.news.religion:
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.group.women,clari.news.issues,clari.news.interest.people
Subject: Report: Cardinal insists god is a 'he'
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 17 Jun 91 12:43:19 GMT
Lines: 18


	NEW YORK (UPI) -- Cardinal John O'Connor, in a Father's Day sermon
that blasted radical feminists, insisted God is male, a published report
said Monday.
	``We have no right to reconstruct (Christianity) as we like or
choose,'' the New York Post quoted the cardinal saying in his Sunday
sermon. ``We are not authorized to change 'Our Father' into 'Our
Mother'.''
	Feminists' struggle to change god's gender is based on ``tragic
misperceptions,'' the cardinal said.
	``It makes it particularly difficult for women in the church who want
to assume rightful roles to be given a credible hearing,'' the cardinal
said.
	But O'Connor described as ``valid'' feminism that aims for ``equal
rights, that struggle to be treated with dignity.''
	The speech enraged some local feminists.
	``God is forgiving, and I'm sure 'she' will forgive the cardinal,''
Ellen Doherty, a feminist activist, told the Post.

    Since both genders have characteristic qualities, and God has no need
     to biologically propagate - why would God need or even want a gender?
    
    "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak...".doesn't sound like
    flesh is the sort of stuff God needs to bother with.  As for being made
    in God's "image" - an image doesn't have to be something we can see
    with our eyeballs!

Re:  370.3

Pat,

What will it take for you to be able to decide whether or not
you are "a Christian"?  What should a Christian be or believe
(or whatever...) from your perspective?

I'm just struck by you saying that you "haven't decided" whether
or not to consider yourself a Christian and go on to explain
your need or desire for a "Goddess", something which by both
conservative and liberal Christian church standards is clearly
outside the scope of Christian belief and experience.  Why
might you choose the label "Christian" given all this?  Is it
because that you think/feel that your understanding/experience
of Christ is as legitimate or more legitimate than other
understandings?  Or is it something else?

I'm not sure where the best place for this note is; moderators
feel free to move it.  I do think the question is worth asking.

Collis

Note 370.4

>"Goddess", something which by both
>conservative and liberal Christian church standards is clearly
>outside the scope of Christian belief and experience.

What scale are you using here, Collis?

I have no problem with the Deity possessing female gender characteristics.
To the best of my knowledge, neither does my theologically conservative church.

Richard

There's an interesting exchange going on in Womannotes, Note 179, entitled
"God - Female or Male?"

You may add this conference to your notebook by pressing KP7 or
typing: ADD ENTRY IKE22::WOMMANNOTES-V4

Peace,
Richard

re:  256.38

  >I have no problem with the Deity possessing female gender characteristics.

Neither do I.  However, that is not even close to what I said.  I do
have problems with searching for a Goddess because God is insufficient
because of His (percieved) "maleness".  I expect your theologically
conservative church (do they preach inerrancy?) does as well.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    
    I am currently reading two wonderful books that are helping me answers
    this question.  One is Sexism and Godtalk by  Judith?  Rueger. 
    The Other, a novel Mist of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradlee.  A great
    book that I have just finished is "Rescuing the Bible from
    Fundamentalists.  I left the Christian Church in my late teens because
    I could not then nor can I now say the Apostle's Creed and believe it.
    
    I attend the Unitarian Universalist Church and delight in the diversity
    encouraged there.  For me "the way" and "the truth" of any religion is
    the impact that religion has on inspiring people to live a life of
    "love, peace, hope, joy, justice etc"   I believe the particular
    religion that many of us find ourselves "devoted to" is a function of
    our family, our geography, our culture, our idealism.  I grew up in a 
    Christian Church and recognize that the symbols, stories, liturgy have
    some subconscious meaning to me separate from the dogma.
    
    I have only recently discovered Liberal Christianity and realize that
    there are many others like me attempting to find meaning in the
    Christian religion beyond a literal interpretation of the scriptures.
    This is causing me to look again at a background that I have rejected. I am
    inspired by the message of Jesus of Nazareth and by the way he lead his
    life as a fully human person.  I am inspired by his humanity and not
    his divinity. I am inspired that Martin Luther King Jr 1900 years later
    could use that message to bring about social revolution in America.
    
    As a feminist, I also know that both the old and new testament are
    anti-woman.  Paul in particular is offensive.  Obviously I do not
    believe that Paul's letters are either the word of Goddess/God or are
    divinely inspired.  To the degree that myths and symbols are important
    to each of our psychic development, I need myths and symbols that fully
    affirm my experience as a woman.  Fortunately in my religious
    tradition, I am encouraged to draw from all the world's great religions
    to develop a personal theology.  The question I have for my self is
    where does the Judeo-Christian religion fit into my personal theology.
    
    The Mist of Avalon is great.  It is a retelling of the King Arthur tale
    from a Feminist, Pagan perspective.  The world of Christianity and the
    world of the mother Goddess are set side by side.  The Priestess
    however are the ones who know that all Gods are one God and all Goddess
    are one Goddess.
    
    
    Pat

I hope that your search results in finding the truth of Jesus Christ -
a truth that His one, simple answer is not confining, but rather
freeing.

I guess it's human nature for everyone to want to develop their own
theology, their own beliefs that are matched to them.  Personally, I
prefer God's way which is to simply believe His revelation (i.e.
change the beliefs to conform to God rather than changing God to
conform to what we want).  :-)

Clearly, in my opinion, what you are expressing is not Christianity.
I ask the same question then.  Why might you choose to call yourself
a Christian when your views have little to do with Christianity?

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Because I have given myself permission to define what Christianity
    means for me.  
    
    Pat

    Gee Pat,
    
    Sounds like you're engaging the same idea that the founders of *ALL* the 
    various denominations of Christianity have done. :-)  Gee, that reminds
    me.  Didn't Jesus just ask his disciples to go out and share the good 
    news; or did he also discuss with them plans on building a church and 
    organizing a hierachical religion to do so?  Just curious.  
    
    Karen

    Aw, Karen, you're no fun!  Don't you realize how much we need the
    Religion Identification Police to make sure that the rest of us
    conform?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

Thanks for your answer, Pat.  We discussed everyone defining terms for
himself/herself in this conference about a year ago.  Certainly everyone
is free to do it and certainly we all suffer the consequences for
doing it (i.e. communication fails to the extent that we do not agree
on the meaning of what we're saying).

Collis

re Note 256.42 by 62465::JACKSON:

> I guess it's human nature for everyone to want to develop their own
> theology, their own beliefs that are matched to them.  Personally, I
> prefer God's way which is to simply believe His revelation (i.e.
> change the beliefs to conform to God rather than changing God to
> conform to what we want).  :-)
  
        You do realize, Collis, that what you have described ("simply
        believe His revelation") subjectively appears to be merely
        the way you personally explain the basis for your own
        theology.

        (Theology, by its very definition, is an attempt to
        understand a reality that exists, much the same way physics
        is an attempt to understand a reality that exists.  In my
        experience, those who express a desire to "develop their own
        theology" are truly interested in discovering God, not in
        changing God nor in inventing God.  You insult many of us by
        equating a personal theology with an attempt to fabricate a
        God of our own convenience.)

        Bob

Bob,

I was responding to what I heard from a specific individual, not responding
to everyone in this conference.  What I heard from Pat was NOT that she
was seeking God, but rather that her desires because of who she was and
what she perceived led her to search for a Goddess (amongst other things)
as that would most properly fulfill what she thought her needs were.  That
is what I heard; perhaps it is not what Pat was trying to say (perhaps it
was).  I indicated that I thought this was the improper approach
REGARDLESS of who God is or whether my ideas about God are correct.

If you think that this is a proper approach, you can disagree with me.

If you think that it is an improper approach, you can agree with me
whether or not you think that my understanding of God's revelation is
correct.

Either way, there is no need to be offended because I may no attempt to
claim that what I believe is correct (although I believe it is) and did
not attempt to belittle what she (or you) believed.  I just commented on
the approach that I heard her expressing.

Is that clearer?  Are you now not offended?

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I believe there is just one Goddess/God which is in fact unknowable.
    "I am what I am"  I also believe that the human mind is not capable of
    directly comprehending such a reality.  Men and Women thus write and
    assemble stories and myths to represent that reality.  The stories and
    myths assembled in the old and new testaments represent a Male God(with
    some I grant female characteristics).  My search for a Goddess is not
    for the reality of the Goddess but for the symbolic representation of
    the female aspect of that reality.  I believe that Goddess/God works
    his/her miracles through Humans.  The ultimate expression of this in
    Christianity is through Jesus.  If each of us emulates Jesus' desire to
    love his neighbor as himself then we too can work Goddess/God's
    miracles on earth.  People from other religious traditions may choose a
    different prophet, teacher, example, as the source of Goddess/God's
    love within the human realm.  The goal is for everyone, by practicing
    the Gospel of love to bring about "the Realm of the Divine on earth." 
    To me, this is the essence of Religion. If Jesus is the prophet I chose
    as the example of Goddess/God's love, than that is the essence of
    Christianity for me.
    
    Pat

Re:  256.50

  >Collis, in your note you made a comment about Pat's motives, and
  >accused her of deliberating ignoring God's revelation in favor whatever
  >suits her.

I made a comment about Pat's process indicating that (it sounded to me that)
she was pursuing God based on where she was coming from rather than
pursuing what God has revealed.  

  >But this assumes that she necessarily shares your assumptions about 
  >the nature of divine revelation.

Not true.  Even if she didn't believe in divine revelation or was
simply unsure about it, she could still pursue it (recognizing that
it still might exist).

  >You based your criticism of her on a premise that she probably does not 
  >share, and thus attacked her motives (attributing them to the failings of 
  >"human nature") without justification.

Whoa!  Wait one minute.  Does everytime I point something out and suggest
something else have to be a "criticism"?  It is *YOU* who are reading
in many, many things which I never said.  Again, my comment was NOT
based "on a premise that she probably does not share" and it does
NOT "attack her motives" either with or without justification.  It is
you, rather, who seem to be on the attack.

  >...when you attribute intellectual dishonesty to others...

You truly are on the warpath today, aren't you Mike.

  >There were discussions at one time about defining "Christianity". 
  >It was mentioned that linguistic philosophers (like Wittgenstein) noted
  >the inherent difficulties in reducing certain concepts to a single,
  >precise definition, and the suggestion was that Christianity is one such
  >concept.

I certainly agree with Wittgenstein that "Christianity" is far too complex 
from a human perspective to give it one or even several precise definitions.
(From God's perspective, I think it's rather easy.  :-) )

However, that does not mean that there should therefore be complete
liberty in labelling everything and anything "Christian".  What are
reasonable limits is a reasonable question that reasonable people will
disagree on.  Suggesting that Pat's definition of "Christian" would
include that which is outside of the norm and therefore not suitable
for that label is reasonable, in my opinion.  I expect that, with some
effort, you can express an opposite opinion (if that is your choice)
without further attacks on either my beliefs or my intentions.

Collis

    Collis, in your note you made a comment about Pat's motives, and
    accused her of deliberating ignoring God's revelation in favor whatever
    suits her.  But this assumes that she necessarily shares your
    assumptions about the nature of divine revelation.  If she felt that
    God's revelation was necessarily found clearly and ambiguously within a
    particular source (such as a written text like the Bible), then perhaps
    you might have a point.  But, as it is, she gave no indication of
    sharing that view (and I suspect she does not).  You based your
    criticism of her on a premise that she probably does not share, and
    thus attacked her motives (attributing them to the failings of "human
    nature") without justification.  The fact is that all of us have to
    come to some sort of conclusion about the nature of divine revelation,
    including you; and when you attribute intellectual dishonesty to others
    simply because their views on the nature of revelation are different
    than your own, you do them a great disservice.

    There were discussions at one time about defining "Christianity". 
    It was mentioned that linguistic philosophers (like Wittgenstein) noted
    the inherent difficulties in reducing certain concepts to a single,
    precise definition, and the suggestion was that Christianity is one such
    concept.

    -- Mike

    Collis, I had deleted the note you responded to, but now that your
    response is in I reposted my note to avoid confusion.  I hope that is
    not too confusing.  :-)

    I can't speak for Pat's view of divine revelation.  However,  it is
    easy enough to imagine a way of viewing it that is different from your
    own.  Suppose (for the sake of argument) that one believes that the
    nature of God's revelation, as perceived by humans, is necessarily
    ambiguous, multifaceted, and supportive of many mutually coexisting
    interpretations; this implies that all expressions of that revelation
    can be flawed or limited in some way.  An example of such a limitation
    would be a message of exclusivity that shuts certain people out (for
    example, women).  In that case, turning to other religious messages
    that overcome this limitation of a particular divine revelation is
    perfectly reasonable and acceptable.  It is not then a case of
    rejecting God's revelation in favor of a personal preference, but
    rather rejecting a limited human interpretation of God's revelation in
    order to discover other aspects of the divine.

    Whether or not this is Pat's perspective is not for me to say; but it
    seems to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with her approach. 
    Do you feel that people are rejecting God's revelation by developing a
    personal theology?  And if so, is to make such a comment not a
    criticism?

    -- Mike

    Collis
    
    "Why might you choose to call yourself a Christian when your views have
    little to do with Christianity?"
    
    That is the phrase where you question my motives and assume you have
    the answer to what is Christianity. My quest is an honest quest to look
    at the religion of my childhood and determine where it fits in with the
    religion of my adulthood.  Scholars have been fighting for centuries
    regarding what was the essence of Christianity.  Is it the humanity of
    Jesus or the Divinity of Jesus.  If I chose to call it the humanity of
    Jesus, that is my choice.  If I chose to believe that Jesus does not
    have to be the only way and that a more inclusive Christianity is what
    I am looking for, that too is my choice.  
    
    I fully assert that the question "Do I consider myself a Christian" is
    a legitimate question and is a question that only I can answer.  The
    question means I must first define for myself what the essence of
    Christianity is.  As a Unitarian Universalist, the question is also more
    important for me than the answers. The question represents a  lifetime 
    search for what is Intimately and Ultimately important for me.
    
    
    Pat
    

Re:  256.52

  >Whether or not this is Pat's perspective is not for me to say; but it
  >seems to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with her approach. 
  >Do you feel that people are rejecting God's revelation by developing a
  >personal theology?  And if so, is to make such a comment not a
  >criticism?

I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with what you describe,
Mike, in the abstract.  However, the answers that are gotten by what
you describe are necessarily self-contradictory.  (God is 100% white.  No,
God is 100% black.  No, God is actually gray with a few other colors
thrown in.)

Regardless of that, I read into not only what Pat said but how she
said it that this was a search for God that would necessarily need
to fit herself.  There was no indication from Pat that she was
seeking God's "revelation" through this or even that God has any
revelation.  Actually, her later comments tend to indicate that there
either is no revelation or no clear revelation to figure out.

I also continue to believe that it *is* human nature to want God
to come to us on *our* terms rather than to go to Him on *His terms*.
I know I certainly struggle with this and I see in the process that Pat 
has chosen this choice.  Perhaps I am wrong, but it is what I see.

Yes, Mike, upon re-reading what I wrote I admit that it is judgmental
in the process that Pat has chosen.  Please forgive me for not being
more sensitive.

Collis

    Mike,
    
    You seem to pretty accurately reflect my feelings regarding "divine
    revelation".  I believe that the experience of the divine is a direct
    experience between each individual and the divine.  When an individual
    is in touch with what is the most unique and authenticate within
    themselves then they are experiencing the Intimate reality of the
    divine.  Any revelation that takes place takes place on that level. 
    Unfortunately the only one that can make sense out of that revelation
    is the individual.  Using your words Mike, shared revelations are
    therefore ambiguous and flawed.   I was amazed to learn that the
    divine revelation of God to Moses of the 10 commandments was finally 
    written down 900 years  after the event..  And somehow Moses' big 
    sister Miriam was significantly left out of the story. 
    
    Pat
    
    
    

    Collis, fair enough.  And if my comments came across as a personal
    attack, please accept my apology.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .53

Hi, Pat,

Actually, I was not setting myself up as the judge of what is "Christianity",
but as I indicated in my response to Mike, there are reasonable ideas
of what Christianity is.  It is these ideas that I was using to compare
and contrast your definition of Christianity to.

There is indeed some judgment involved here.  It never occured to me
that questioning your definition of Christianity when it is clearly
(to me) outside of the normal definition was also questioning your
motives.  In fact, I still have a hard time trying to connect the two.
But I'll accept that this is what you read and ask your forgiveness
since it was neither intended nor implied.

For what it's worth (and I've said it in this conference a number of
times), there is not a person here who's motives I can ever remember
questioning (with one possible exception :-) ).  I assume that most people
take their search for God seriously and do what they think is best.

Collis

  >I was amazed to learn that the divine revelation of God to Moses of
  >the 10 commandments was finally written down 900 years after the
  >event..

I, too, am amazed to learn this... :-)

    Collis,
    
    That's fair enough.  You have in fact provoked me to push harder to
    clarify for myself what my questions are.
    
    Pat

Note 256.40

> >I have no problem with the Deity possessing female gender characteristics.

>Neither do I.  However, that is not even close to what I said.  I do
>have problems with searching for a Goddess because God is insufficient
>because of His (percieved) "maleness".  I expect your theologically
>conservative church (do they preach inerrancy?) does as well.

Collis,

	I didn't perceive Pat to be searching for a Goddess who is separate
and unique from God, in other words, a false Deity.  I did perceive that
Pat was questioning and perhaps even dismissing some traditional notions
assigned to the Most Holy.

	Yes, my church does teach inerrancy of the original manuscripts.
	                                    ===========================
	Inerrancy of translation, no.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    You interpret me correctly.  I follow a very liberal approach to my
    search for truth.  I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a person who
    had a tremendous impact of history.  I believe that the key to
    understanding Jesus is to understand the culture and history of the 1
    century AD and then understand his contribution to that historic
    moment.  I believe the scriptures are a collection of writings
    assembled from many different times.  Some of the the scriptures were
    rewritten to reinterprest history.  The letters of Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke
    , and John were all written at different times after the death of
    Jesus in that order.  Each has a different message about this historic
    event.  The whole truth is not contained within these scriptures but
    the scriptures can point us to truth.
    
    The truth for us living in 1991 is not as much the way Jesus reacted to 1st
    century Social and Political reality but how he might react as a
    historic figure in 1991.  What messages would he give us today.  Jesus
    was a champion of the oppressed.  How would he respond to the
    oppression of today that are based on Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation,
    Age, Class etc.  This is the Truth that I am seeking.
    
    As a woman, I understand the frustration and feeling of oppression in
    reading the bible and seeing how it is either hostile to or ignorant of
    the experience of being a woman.  I am convinced that this is a
    reflection not of the "will of Goddess/God" but a reflection of the
    historic era that the scriptures address and the men who wrote and
    selected those passages which would be deemed scripture.  That is why I
    seek alternative sources that affirm the experience of being a woman.
    
    Pat
    

    Here's another take on the issue.

    I have recently become interested in the philosophy of postmodernism. 
    Lately, it seems like everywhere I turn, I see postmodernism being
    criticized.  The current issue of Harper's has an excerpt from an
    upcoming book, in which a writer condemns postmodernism for rejecting
    Enlightenment values, and accuses the former denizens of the New Left
    for embracing it.  I just got the latest issue of The Other Side, a
    Christian magazine, in the mail yesterday, and it contained an article
    stating that postmodernism is being only concerned with
    superficialities, and identified postmodernism with MTV.

    Well, those criticisms may have some validity, but at the same time I
    think postmodernism has something to contribute, even to people of
    faith.  What my investigation of postmodernism has derived is that
    postmodern philosophy looks at the process of rationalization by our
    culture and its so-called metanarratives.  What's a metanarrative? 
    That's a good question, and I'm not sure I know well enough to say. 
    But my understanding is that any single, unifying philosophy, any
    attempt at subsuming all knowledge, all of society, or all of nature
    into our grasp is something that postmodernism criticizes.  The
    rejection of these metanarratives reflects a certain impertinence,
    then; it doesn't matter whether we are talking about Marxism, or
    Western capitalism; both simply reflect the "modernist" impulse towards
    subsuming the world into a rationalizing impulse.

    It is from this rejection of metanarratives that the charge of nihilism
    is often leveled against postmodernists.  Perhaps this charge has some
    validity.  However, the implications of its perspective are
    interesting.  What happens as a result of these metanarratives is that
    the plurality of the world becomes suppressed; what doesn't correspond
    to the Metanarrative is then marginalized, it becomes the Other.  One
    of the main concerns of postmodernism, then, is for the Other.

    I am not sure that I am fully expressing this correctly or very well;
    but I do know that concern for the Other is an important aspect of
    postmodernism.  We can see how this corresponds well to feminism,
    because feminism often concerns itself with the ways in which women are
    marginalized into the Other by our society; in our society, men are the
    norm, the standard against which things are measured, and women are the
    Other.

    It is then possible that Goddess spirituality, or ways of finding the
    female aspects of the divine, represent a postmodernist search for the
    marginalized Other that a male-dominated religion can produce.  Now I
    don't really know much about the relationship between postmodernism
    religion in general; I do know that varieties of "postmodern" theology
    have been surfacing over the last few years.  Hans Kung used the term
    "postmodernism" in one of his recent books, and John Cobb has been
    pursuing a "constructive" postmodernist theology based on process
    thought, which he contrasts with the "deconstructive" postmodernism
    that he considers too nihilistic.

    Say what we will about postmodernism as a whole, I think that the idea
    of the marginalized Other is an interesting perspective on this
    question of the gender of God.

    -- Mike

re Note 256.62 by CRBOSS::VALENZA:

        Perhaps this is what you're saying, Mike (I'm never so sure
        when there's a lot of philosophical language):

        It is obvious from Scripture that the masculine attributes of
        God are stressed far above the feminine attributes. Yet it is
        equally obvious from life that the masculine and feminine
        aspects of humanity are at least equivalent in importance,
        and it probably can be justified to say that the feminine is
        of greater importance in "real life."

        Why does this disparity exist, if we are indeed "the image of
        God"?  (Perhaps this is the result of the fall -- woman was
        never meant to be so important? :-} )

        Scripture clearly has a masculine bias when it comes to God
        and the divine.  I think it is entirely justified to search
        for alternative expressions of the divine which, while in
        essential harmony with the God of Scripture, reduce or even
        reverse that bias.

        Bob

                                    CRISIS
                                     OVER
                              INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE

The Episcopal Church, like the rest of American society, has become extremely
sensitive to "politically correct" speech, especially when referring to women.
As a result, our leaders feel compelled to change our Liturgy, our hymns, and
even the Bible in order to use language which could not possibly be construed
to "offend" women.

While the attempt to use "inclusive language" to refer to human beings is not,
in itself, harmful (though it is awkward), it leads inevitably to the attempt
to use some kind of "gender neutral" language to express God's Revelation of
Himself and how He wants us to know Him and to speak to Him.  Whenever we
change the words He has given us, and substitute the words we think ought to
be used, we define for ourselves the object of our worship.  Indeed, we have
now created Him to reflect our image.  Furthermore, since the power to name
carries authority, we can now usurp His authority.  The danger is that it
easily results in a new religion, determined by and reflecting man's image.
This new religion is not Christianity.
 
God has revealed Himself consistently, throughout all the ages, in masculine
terms, as Father, as Bridegroom, as Lord.  He revealed Himself most perfectly
in Jesus, a male human being.  To change the Revelation given by God Himself
is to reject God.  The Scriptures are filled with these names for God.  Jesus
continually referred to God as "Father."  Knowing that the way we pray
determines what we believe, and how we relate to God, He taught us,

	"When you pray, say `Our Father'"

For in relationship to God, we are all feminine.  The Church is the Bride of
Christ. 

To change liturgical language in the interests of "inclusive language" is
inherently dangerous, because it changes our perception of God and substitutes
man's ideas for God's Revelation. For instance:

	� To speak of God as Creator,  Redeemer, Sustainer in order to
	  avoid calling Him by Name (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is a
	  denial of the Trinity.  It also makes a personal relationship
	  with Him impossible: it is impossible to pray in a personal way
	  to a God who has no name!

	� To say that the Resurrected Christ, Who appeared to the disciples,
	  to the women, and to 500 others, and Who will come again in glory,
	  is no longer male denies the resurrection of the body.  A
	  recognizable Jesus appeared, still male, still with a body which
	  had wounds, which could eat and drink, which could be touched. 
	  (See the Gospels and the Book of Acts)

	� To hesitate to call Jesus "Lord" (a "masculine" term) is to have
	  an excuse not to obey Him.

	� To use feminine metaphors such as "giving birth" to creation
	  contains a special danger.  It suggests that we are "of the same
	  substance" as God, rather than being created "out of nothing" and
	  completely "other" from God.  It therefore leads to the conclusion
	  that we are divine, we are gods, since we are "of the same
	  substance."

	� To worship a "goddess" (or a Mother God) is to return to paganism,
	  out of which God called us to be His people, and against which the
	  prophets continually have warned us.

The Episcopal Synod of America upholds God's Revelation of Himself as given
and as expressed in Holy Scripture.

    Re: .64
    
    Did you write this note?
    
    I do agree with the note.....I don't see the point of trying to change
    the gender *just for the sake* of being PC.
    
    I think that some changes, though, are good. I prefer the way that the
    NSRV committee worked out the gender terms.
    
    Marc H.

No, it was written by the Episcopal Synod of America.

Note that it doesn't have a real problem with the NRSV changes, since
the NRSV only dealt with gender of people, and not with God's gender.

Thus NRSV changes things like "brethren" to either "brothers and sisters"
or to "believers".

But NRSV maintains all the traditional references to God.

/john

             <<< Note 256.64 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

   John,

   This is a joke, right?   Despite my difference of opinions what I just
   read is so increadibly bogus!  No doubt it exists to serve as a bad 
   example or worse yet mock the idea of inclusive language.


   Peace,
   Allison

No, it's not a joke.  God is revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
not as a pagan goddess.

/john

   John,

   That may be true.  But some of the cases cited were truly beyond
   belief and mocked the intent. 

   If you believe God and Christ were one and Christ was a man on earth
   then God is a he.  Don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that.

   Personal aside:

   I keep feeling like I'm hearing anything that is not doctrinal
   Christian is pagan or inherently bad.

   My personal beliefs God is generless, as gender is a social constuct
   of man and dynamic in meaning.  I can also substitute sexless and sex
   as a scientific construct as well, God is not of the flesh and has no
   sex.  

   Peace,
   Allison

>But some of the cases cited were truly beyond belief and mocked the intent. 

The cases cited are all things that are happening now; many of them have
been mentioned earlier in this topic (such as calling God "Mother").

>If you believe God and Christ were one and Christ was a man on earth
>then God is a he.  Don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that.

But feminists have managed to erect a cross with a nude woman on it
named "Christa" in a cathedral in New York.

>   My personal beliefs God is generless, as gender is a social constuct
>   of man and dynamic in meaning.  I can also substitute sexless and sex
>   as a scientific construct as well, God is not of the flesh and has no
>   sex.  

Certainly God the Father does not have human gender or sex, but the revealed
way to refer to him is as Father, Lord, He.  References such as "Mother" or
"Goddess" are a different religion.

/john

     Efforts are being made by some in the Episcopal Church to
apply feminine terminology to God far beyond what is know from
Scripture.  In fact, the ideological knife being taken to words
like Father and Lord implies directly that Bible language is
inappropriate, and the attack is continued by calling God "Mother."
 
     The transcendence of God beyond all creature images is of the
essence of the Christian understanding of God.  He is not our
begetter or our bearer, but our Maker.  Preoccupation with
masculine or feminine language for God, other than as revealed in
Jesus Christ and in Scripture, is truly playing with idolatry and
our own self-centeredness.  Furthermore, men and women both sin
when they use the gender of God against each other.
 
     God's self-disclosure in Scripture is very specific with
respect to masculine and feminine attributes and with respect to
masculine and feminine appellation.  We must note that biblical
feminine attributions to God such as "as a hen gathers her chicks"
are similes that deal with what God's actions are like.  Similes do
not deal with who God is.  Scriptural images and metaphors that do
deal with who God is are seen in Father, King, Lord, Shepherd. 
Jesus Christ named God the Father and commanded us to do the same
when we pray.
 
     We are saved by Jesus Christ, not by images.  However, we may
be condemned by our images, especially when we form them in
conflict with Scripture.  Tradition, reason and experience are all
known to hold some truth.  They do not hold the truth when they
contradict the Word or alter it to fit our perceived needs
 
     It is a slippery path to attack male sexism, ancient or
modern, through God's image.  Throughout history there have been
male-dominated societies that have had goddess religions.  The
feminine terminology thrust will not save us from our sins and,
more importantly, can lead us from worship of the Christian deity
to a different deity, formed of nature and ourselves.
 
Deuteronomy 4:16  so that you do not become corrupt and make for
yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a
man or a woman.
 
Matthew 6:9  This, then, is how you should pray:  "Our Father in
heaven, hallowed be your name"
 
Matthew 28:19b  ...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
 
Revelation 19:16  On his robe and on his thigh he has this name
written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
 
Reference:
Kimel, Jr., Alvin F.  A New Language For God?  Reports from
Episcopalians United, Number 2, 1990. 
 
The Massachusetts Chapter of Episcopalians United
Gerald Dorman

<But feminists have managed to erect a cross with a nude woman on it
<named "Christa" in a cathedral in New York.

   Well if it for their theology good for them.  If it's protest I
   personally disapprove.  I see it in general as slightly worse than
   depicting Jesus as white, givin the location and his ancestry is
   unlikely as well.

<way to refer to him is as Father, Lord, He.  References such as "Mother" or
<"Goddess" are a different religion.

   Ok, or at least a variation.  That is not your theology though.
   None appear to insult or affront so they hold their respective 
   places in the grand scheme of things.

   Oh, and I label myself as a feminist as well.


   Peace,
   Allison

    The common ground that Allison Parent and John Covert share� appears to
    be only a belief in God, and not any distinctly Christian beliefs.

    In fact, I believe that the two of you disagree that God is an all
    powerful perfect uncreated person with a will that exists outside of
    nature and time who created nature and time.  This belief is the common
    ground between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and is distinct from
    inclusive goddess religions or pantheism.

<    The common ground that Allison Parent and John Covert share� appears to
<    be only a belief in God, and not any distinctly Christian beliefs.

   Yes that is true.  I do find John's opinions interesting and worthy
   of thought dispite differences in beliefs.

<    In fact, I believe that the two of you disagree that God is an all
<    powerful perfect uncreated person with a will that exists outside of
<    nature and time who created nature and time.  This belief is the common
<    ground between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and is distinct from
<    inclusive goddess religions or pantheism.

   You have described my God/H_P/Goddess well.  Then again H_P created
   the order we know as time and nature.

   What may surprize you is if I could only take three books with me
   the Bible would be first and the other two I'm not sure about. It
   is the single most important book of law, history, tradition, and
   faith despite it's imperfections or maybe because of them.  It's
   ambiguity is part of the spiritual mysticism for me.

   Does that help?

   Peace,
   Allison

                            Different Views of God

Views of God which differ from what Christianity has historically believed
but are in vogue today may be set down in simple form like this:

a. God is another name for the totality of the universe.  To be in harmony
with nature, to be truly ecologically aware, is to be in communion with God.
This is known as pantheism, a very ancient way of conceiving God.  Today it
is alive and well.  Mother nature leads to mother god.

b. God is greater than the cosmos, but in God's being the cosmos is included.
This is panentheism -- nature is in God, but God is more than nature.  So it
is said that the cosmos is God's body and as such God may be rightly called
"She" for the cosmos is continually bringing forth new life.  Many feminists
tend to favour this approach.

c. God is in the process of becoming what he will be and in this becoming,
God is changing with the universe as the universe continues to evolve and
develop.  God is not the universe but God's destiny is inextricably linked
to that of the cosmos.  This is known as process theology, for God is in
the process of his own self-evolution to become what he does not yet know
he will be.  Many people impressed by modern scientific knowledge tend to
favour this view that God's Being is in his Becoming.

d. God is the One, that is the One which is hidden from our physical eyes,
for we only see the variety and the many.  By meditation and ascetic
discipline we can, like the Hindu holy man, see and unite ourselves with
the One and thus know internal harmony and unity.  This is monism and comes
into the churches via the New Age movement from eastern-type spirituality.

When people hold these views then what they believe about the Gospel,
the Church, the Bible, the Sacraments and Life after death is seriously
affected.  Though they continue to use traditional Bible and liturgical
language, what they mean by the words is not that which Christians have
historically meant.  Thus we hear many calls to change the Liturgy, the
way we address God, the morality we are to live by and the Gospel we are
to preach to the world.

                           The Christian View of God

He is Trinity

Historically, based on the Jewish monotheism and on the teaching of Jesus
and his apostles, the Church has explained that the God whom she experiences,
worships and serves is best described in terms of Trinitarian Theism.  There
is one God who is eternal.  In his eternity God is a Trinity of Persons and
there is perfect communion in the Godhead between the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.  The God of holy love is uncreated Being and self-existent Being.

He is Transcendent and Immanent

The cosmos is the creation of this one God, for the Father creates through
the Son and by the Holy Spirit.  The universe is thus _wholly_separate_ from
the Being of God -- he wholly transcends it.  Yet the universe is wholly
preserved and kept in being and development by God -- he is immanent within
his creation.  And human beings are the stewards of the creation, made in
God's image and after his likeness.

The cosmos points to its Creator but is not itself part of God.  Rather, it
is that which God, its maker, loves and cares for.  Human beings are able to
know and experience this love, for the Second Person of the Holy Trinity of
the One God became Man and thus revealed God to mankind, and in so doing
brought salvation to the human race.  Further, the Holy Spirit is present
in the Church of God and in his world to bring unto human beings the benefits
won for us by the redeeming and reconciling work of Jesus Christ, Incarnate
Son.  Thus God is specially immanent within the universe unto those who hear
and receive the Gospel of God concerning Jesus Christ.

From this Trinitarian Theism the historic teaching of the Church flows.  The
Gospel is a word from the transcendent God to people in this space and time;
the Church is not merely a this-worldly institution but it is a heavenly
society, a pilgrim people, the Body of Christ, united to the heavenly Lord
and looking unto him for guidance, life, and salvation.

In Summary

The religion which develops from pantheism or panentheism or process theology
is not the religion which has been historically linked with Jesus of Nazareth,
when he is confessed as Christ and Lord.  Christianity, as a historical
religion, is based on the confession of Jesus as Lord, as the One who comes
from the transcendent God into space and time, in order to unite human beings
with this God, who is a Trinity of Persons, for eternal life, salvation and
blessedness.  The primary emphasis upon the _transcendence_ of God is
important; for his immanence is dependent upon it.  God is God before God
is Creator; and God will be/is God when the cosmos is no longer.  If his
immanence is put first, then the drift into pantheism or panentheism or
process theology so easily occurs.  Let God be God.

ESA (edited/jrc)

    The Bible describes God in terms of a mother eagle.  I suppose this
    is an equally obtuse simile.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Be sure to distinguish between a description of God and a description of an
action of God.

/john

    Oh, I'm not worried about it.  I'm sure you'll be there to criticize
    me when I go astray, jc.
    
    Richard
    

    Richrd, the only reference to eagles is in Mt 24:28, Lk 17:37 in
    describing the time of the second coming of Jesus,  "W�herever the
    corpse is, there will be the eagles gathered together."
    
    In some translations this is "vultures".  The eagle, of course, was the
    symbol of the Roman Empire until replaced with the Cross in the time of
    Constantine.  In Rv 4:7 the eagle is the symbol of Saint John the
    Evangelist.  What was your point anyway?
    
    re: spirits have gender?. Is there scriptural evidence for this?

Wrong again, Patrick.  No access to a concordance?

Deuteronomy 32:11  As an �eagle� stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her
young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on
her wings:

And also,

Exodus 19:4  Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and [how] I
bare you on �eagles'� wings, and brought you unto myself.

Please see surrounding verses, so that I may not be accused of taking these
out of context.


Richard

When "as" is used, a simile is being made.  God is not an eagle, God is
doing something the way an eagle would do it.

Note that the RSV and NRSV have both neutered the Deuteronomy eagle, using
"its" instead of "her".  But this isn't a reference to God, it is to
an action of God.  A simile.

In the Exodus quote there is no "as" but there is also no gender, and it
is also clear that "bore you on eagle's wings" is a use of imagery; we
know that the people of Israel walked; they didn't fly Air Sinai, as I
will on November 27th when I go from Cairo to Jerusalem.

/john

    Well, I *knew* you'd come to the rescue, jc.  Just as I predicted in .79.
    
    I never said it wasn't a simile.  In fact, I said it was.
    
    Richard
    

Actually, you said you suppose it is an "equally obtuse" simile.

What is your point?

/john

    I don't think my "point" is obscure enough to require explanation, jc.
    
    Richard
    

   So many angels, so many pins, and they dance.

   The use of gender is appropriate to context and an aid to
   understanding.  The use of femminine for God is a useful paradigm
   for a loving nurturing god.  The use of masculine may be a metaphor
   for his power.  BOTH are correct and neither if out of context of
   used to corrupt the meaning.  Terms like father are likely language
   remnents to convey mastership or postion of honor.  Metaphor and
   simile are part of language but are inextricably linked to paradigms
   of the time.  If the paradigms are universal we agree on meaning,
   if they are not ambiguity reigns.  If there is one thing obvious
   to me, for many centuries there has been disagreement on scriptural
   writings.  Why else would there be umpty-dozen different versions
   of supposedly the same book?

   Peace,
   Allison

>The use of femminine for God is a useful paradigm for a loving nurturing god.

The implication that only women can be loving and nurturing is sexism and
a denial of Jesus Christ, the ultimate example of love.

Feminine gods are the false pagan gods that God led his People away from,
and against whom the prophets constantly warned us.

A belief in a female God is not Christianity.  It is a different religion.

/john

Note 256.87

>The implication that only women can be loving and nurturing is sexism and
>a denial of Jesus Christ, the ultimate example of love.

a. Since when are you concerned about anything as "pc" as identifying
   sexism, jc?

b. It most certainly is not a denial of Jesus Christ.  You haven't even
   tried to understand what Allison was saying.

>A belief in a female God is not Christianity.  It is a different religion.

a. Neither Allison nor I have specified the gender of God.

b. Are you saying God has a penis and a scrotum?  And has a beard just like
   in Michaelanglo's painting?  As long as you're at it, can you tell me what
   color skin God has?

Richard

>a. Since when are you concerned about anything as "pc" as identifying
>   sexism, jc?

For many years.  The record exists in other conferences.

>a. Neither Allison nor I have specified the gender of God.

In .75 Allison refers to her "goddess".

/john

Note 256.89

>For many years.  The record exists in other conferences.

Yeah, right.

>In .75 Allison refers to her "goddess".

You *still* haven't tried to understand what Allison was saying.  I don't
think you really want to understand.

It's not going unnoticed that you failed to respond to these questions:

b. Are you saying God has a penis and a scrotum?  And has a beard just like
   in Michaelanglo's painting?  As long as you're at it, can you tell me what
   color skin God has?

Weren't they phrased right for you?

Richard

>It's not going unnoticed that you failed to respond to these questions:
>
>b. Are you saying God has a penis and a scrotum?  And has a beard just like
>   in Michaelanglo's painting?  As long as you're at it, can you tell me what
>   color skin God has?
>
>Weren't they phrased right for you?

They're questions designed to ridicule.

And I've already, in this topic, stated that God the Father does not have
human sex or gender, but that the revealed way to refer to him, by our
Lord Jesus Christ's own command, is using male terminology.

So, to answer all three:  No: I'm not saying that God the Father has a
penis and a scrotum.  However, Jesus Christ does, so he is _not_ our
mother.  And I'm not saying that he has a beard like in Michaelangelo's
painting.  And no, I can't tell you what color skin God has.

/john

   John,

   I did not say God(generic) _is_ femminine.  I said it may be a useful
   paradigm in language.

   You have confused the above a simple statment which I believe supports
   you with what _my_ specific beliefs and personal useage is.  I am not
   doctinal Christian as you are so your repeated statements are pointless
   and obtuse.  Though we may disagree in theology about what Christianity
   or being Christian is there is one predominent item outside of
   doctrine.  I support your beliefs and wish to understand them.  I feel
   you are unwilling to reciprocate.

   Now I will state myself, My personel beliefs has my H_P in a feminine
   cast as a nurturing and loving God in all ways that I may not
   understand now.  I did not say H_P is human or a woman, only that
   H_P is supreme and has a role for me.  It is based on my Judeo-Christian
   background though it is not Christian by most litmus tests.  I fail
   in your eyes yet I embrace one concept you do as well Jesus did
   improve the world for man.

   At this point I would ask, please reread my former notes. You are
   correct in many ways but you are incorrect in understanding what 
   I've tried to say.  It may simply be that I am a poor writer or use
   metaphors and paradigms that are unusual to you.  Stretch, grasp the
   ideas, you don't have to accept them as right for you.  If anything
   I would expect you to point out difference and how you find it different.

   Peace,
   Allison

Allison,

I think you have been clear about your beliefs.  As a Christian, I can
try to understand your beliefs, but of course the Christian Perspective
is that Jesus commands all the people of the world not to support or
accept heterodoxy, but rather to believe and teach what he taught.
(Matthew 28:19-20)

You are clear that you don't consider your beliefs Christian beliefs.

Richard is not so clear.

/john

<accept heterodoxy, but rather to believe and teach what he taught.
       ^^^^^
   	   + what is that?

<You are clear that you don't consider your beliefs Christian beliefs.

   It not all or none, and some of my beliefs are very Christian.  Some
   are revisonistic and no doubt a few I haven't considered yet.

   Why do you criticize Richard in that way in response to me?

   Peace,
   Allison

>   Why do you criticize Richard in that way in response to me?

That was not criticism of Richard; it is a statement of fact: Richard
is not clear that believing in a goddess is incompatible with Christianity.

I wanted make it clear to you that many of my responses have been to Richard.

/john

P.S.: It's past bedtime.  See you tomorrow.

re Note 256.71 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Certainly God the Father does not have human gender or sex, but the revealed
> way to refer to him is as Father, Lord, He.  References such as "Mother" or
> "Goddess" are a different religion.
  
        I just don't understand or agree to this "anything that is
        not required is prohibited" approach to living my
        relationship with God.  It is an extremely weak case to state
        that the Bible's consistently male references to God prove
        that God demands or even prefers to be referred to as
        masculine, and dislikes or even abhors being referred to as
        feminine.

        The God who created the universe is certainly capable of
        writing plainly that the above is the intent, and commanding
        it in no uncertain terms, if God really intended to do so.

        Bob

God did command it in no uncertain terms.

	"When you pray, say `Our Father, ...'"

	"I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other Gods but me."

Not Mother.  Not Lady.  Not Goddess.

Father, Lord, and God, all masculine terms.

/john

   John,

   Christ's teaching was heterodoxy for his time as well.  

   Personally I'm for polydoxy, it's the basic similarity in every
   monotheistic religion throughout the world that impresses me.
   Though i'd admit to being ambidoxtrous.

   Peace,
   Allison

�    I can respect Allison's beliefs as the product of her imagination and
    non-Christian.

    However if Allison  witnesses to these beliefs in the name of Jesus
    Christ, she is wrong and in this context I define and defend  the apostolic
    tradition of nearly 20 centuries of witness to Jesus Christ..

    It is the Christian tradition of nearly 20 centuries that Jesus was not
    "heterodox" but the prefect fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies,�
    and established a New Covenant to replace the old

    I know Jewish Christians who follow the New Covenant and the Old with
    the exception that they no longer anticipate the First Coming of the
    Messiah, like all Christians they anticipate in joyful hope the Second�
    Coming of the Messiah.
    
                                                                      

<    I can respect Allison's beliefs as the product of her imagination and
    non-Christian.

   I've never been accused of possessing imagination, that's a true
   step forward toward seeing a broader set of possibilities and
   reasoning.

<    However if Allison  witnesses to these beliefs in the name of Jesus
<    Christ, she is wrong and in this context I define and defend  the apostolic
<    tradition of nearly 20 centuries of witness to Jesus Christ..

   I don't witness.  I would not be above teaching conventional doctrine
   as I consider it an excellent starting point for spiritual health.
   I would say at the outset that first having a spiritual life is formost
   the acceptance of doctrine comes from willing examination. 

   Peace,
   Allison

    Re: .74
    
    Why are you starting a fight? Let the two people talk.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .80
    
    Check Isaiah...chapter 31.
    
    Marc H.

    While the authors quoted in 256.76 have the distinction of actually
    knowing that there is a difference between pantheism and panentheism
    (although they end up lumping the two together anyway), it
    unfortunately appears that they may not understand process theology
    very well at all.
    
    -- Mike

    .76
    
    What you refer to as the historic interpretation of Christianity
    represents 3000 years of Judeo Christian oppression of women.  It is a
    result of History and not Theology that women are excluded.
    
    If Christianity really means that a human became divine only once in
    History in in the form of a man. And if you interpret Christianity as
    mean that a male god created a male Christ who called 13 male disciples
    then it is impossible to be a feminist and a Christian. And to boot,
    must reference of the holy spirit as feminine have been eradicated as
    well.
    
    
                            Patricia
    
    

>If you interpret Christianity as mean that a male god created a male Christ
>who called 13 male disciples then it is impossible to be a feminist and a
>Christian.

This is not true.

There is much good work for feminists to do with respect to "this world"
without making themselves gods and attempting to change God's revelation
of himself.

/john

    This is a quibble over what is a "feminist".
    
    Pat

re Note 256.97 by COVERT::COVERT:

>                                   -< Strong >-
> 
> God did command it in no uncertain terms.
> 
> 	"When you pray, say `Our Father, ...'"

        So are you saying, John, that when you pray you ONLY use the
        words as written in the Lord's prayer, and NEVER use any
        other form of prayer?  Otherwise, you are saying that, at the
        same time you interpret the word "Father" as an absolute and
        exclusive commandment, you do not take the entire prayer as
        absolute and exclusive.

        I know of no Christian that believes that the above (found in
        Luke 11) prohibits other forms of Christian prayer.  Yet you
        believe that it prohibits addressing God with other
        respectful parental terms?

Bob

re Note 256.105 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     If Christianity really means that a human became divine only once in
>     History in in the form of a man. 

        Actually, it's the divine becoming human.

        Bob

>        So are you saying, John, that when you pray you ONLY use the
>        words as written in the Lord's prayer, and NEVER use any
>        other form of prayer?  Otherwise, you are saying that, at the
>        same time you interpret the word "Father" as an absolute and
>        exclusive commandment, you do not take the entire prayer as
>        absolute and exclusive.

If you read the words around the prayer (in the sixth chapter of Matthew)
and other times where Jesus is praying to the Father, you will see that the
contents of the prayer are not exclusive.

What is exclusive is Jesus's command to pray to and worship the Father.  Not
the Mother.

/john

	John, I know this woman (Eileen George) who went to this Catholic
Church in Worcester to speak (and still does I think) and always refers to God
as Daddy God. I'm being serious when I ask do you think this is a wrong term to
use?



Glen

No.  Daddy means Father.

/john

    Bob,
    
    Thanks for the insight.  You know I've been struggling for the
    theological answers to when did Jesus became the Christ.  
    
    1. Conception.
    2. Baptism
    3. Preexistent Logos
    
    Realizing that I have been looking at the question backwards certainly
    helps me understand alternative 3 better.  But then alternative 2 makes
    less sense.
    
    Patricia

256.91

You concede that God has no gender, yet you insist on exclusively male gender-
specific language when refering to God.  Presumably, this is out of respect
for tradition and because Jesus referred to God as Father twenty centuries
ago.

I recognize and respect that tradition.  At the same time I will say that I
am not compelled to embrace that tradition, myself.  If it means that I'll
burn in Hell on account of my heretical beliefs, then so be it.

In the hope of Peace,
Richard

	I had a talk with my step mother about this the other day. I realized
	during that talk some things about my attitude towards using female
	terms for God. When one thinks of a nurturing parent, the one who 
	feeds you, dresses you, who you go to when you wake up in the middle
	of the night with night terrors who do you think of? There is a clear
	answer for most people. For me it is my father for he is all I had
	from the age of 10 on. When I think of a nurturing parent the image
	I have is male. So it is with my image of God.

	Thus I find that for me at least the suggestion that the nurturing
	role of God is His female side it devalues the role of my particular
	father. Of course, as most people, I've tried to pattern my role as
	a father after a father I respect and the things he did that I value.
	As a result I concider myself a very nuturing parent. And I see that
	as an expression of my maleness. 

	God has no gender per se but His only known appearance on earth was
	male. He told us through His son that Father was a proper term to
	refer to Him. So frankly I do not see a need or a value in using
	feminine nouns to talk about God. And in fact it appears that most
	"justifications" for doing so are defacto put downs and devaluations
	of men. I suspect that for most that devaluation is unintended. At least
	I hope so.

				Alfred

re: Note 256.115 by Alfred "Radical Centralist" 

Alfred,

I'm very glad your father was so nurturing.  One difficulty I have is that 
neither of my natural parents were nuturing in many important areas.

As you see no need or value in using feminine nouns to talk about God, so do 
many people see no need or value in using masculine nouns to talk about God.

As far as God's appearance on earth, what gender was the dove (the appearance 
of the Holy Spirit at Jesus' baptism), or the pillars of smoke and fire (as
God lead the people in Exodus) or the tongues of flame (the manifestation of
the Holy Spirit in Acts)? 

Peace,

Jim

    Interestingly enough, Pope John Paul I shortly before
    his sudden death, is quoted to have said:
    
    	"God is both mother and father, but God is more mother 
    	 than father."
    
    Karen

    Karen,
    
    Where did you read that?

Jim 256.116,

	I appreciate your honesty.

	I think it spoke well of Joseph that Jesus would affectionately call
God Father.

	We would do well to remember that not all fathers have provided their
children with a healthy image of what being a father is all about.  Jesus
asked what kind of father would give their child a stone when the child asked
for bread.  Sadly, some fathers have done far worse things to their children.

Peace,
Richard

    Patrick .118,
    
    The quote of Pope John Paul I is from _The coming of the cosmic 
    Christ_ by Matthew Fox.  Fox cites it from a book by David A.
    Yallop _In God's name: an investigation into the murder of Pope 
    John Paul I_ (New York: Bantam Books, 1984).  
    
    (The note says Yallop provides substantitive evidence that the 
    pope's sudden death was not accidental.)
    
    Karen

    Since G-d, THE God is gender neutral, the use of the terms mom, her,
    etc., can only refer to a false deity or a Pagan deity...which yes, I
    know you openly admit.
    
    -Jack

    Since G-d, THE God is gender neutral, the use of the terms DAD, HIM,
    etc., can only refer to a false deity or a Pagan deity...which yes, I
    know you openly admit.

From now on God must be refered to as IT....

I'm sorry,  God's bigger than that.

Tom

| <<< Note 256.121 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| THE God is gender neutral, the use of the terms mom, her, etc., can only 
| refer to a false deity or a Pagan deity...

	Yet He, His, Father, etc is ok to describe someOne who is gender 
neutral. Right, Jack....

    Well
    
    I am admitadly a pagan.  However, what is the problem with the creator
    of all of us being referred to as a parent?  In my tradition she is the
    creator, and gave birth to the entire creation, with the help of her
    consort.  
    
    to me also, she, her, hers is a gender neutral set of pronouns, just as
    some people consider him and his gender neutral.
    
    meg

    It seems to be more of a problem for Adonai's followers than it is for
    Adonai.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Z    Since G-d, THE God is gender neutral, the use of the terms DAD, HIM,
Z    etc., can only refer to a false deity or a Pagan deity...which yes,
Z    I know you openly admit.
    
    No, I don't admit that at all.
    
    I acknowledge the Hebrew culture was a patriarchal culture.  I also
    acknowledge that Jesus recognized terms as "The Father" and used the
    masculine form of the Hebrew language in referencing God.  Therefore,
    I believe we should follow likewise.
    
    In answer to Richards statement, yes, I do have a problem with
    this...you are assuming that God does not have a problem with this,
    simply because the issue is never addressed.  I concur that God is
    genderless; however, I also believe that using the term, "she" in a way
    to comply to the wiccan beliefs is very much what compromises the Jews
    had to make within the Babylonian and Roman cultures.  In those cases,
    "She" was reference to a false deity.  
    
    -Jack

>    I concur that God is genderless;

    I know I've said the same thing. However, I wonder if it would
    be more correct to say that God includes both genders?

>    to comply to the wiccan beliefs is very much what compromises the Jews
>    had to make within the Babylonian and Roman cultures.  In those cases,
>    "She" was reference to a false deity.  

    Must we also be captive the their associations?  It's been probably
    at least 3000 years since that time.  How long must we hold a grudge?

    Tom

re Note 256.126 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I acknowledge the Hebrew culture was a patriarchal culture.  I also
>     acknowledge that Jesus recognized terms as "The Father" and used the
>     masculine form of the Hebrew language in referencing God.  Therefore,
>     I believe we should follow likewise.
  
        Yes, but what is "likewise" in this case?

        The way I interpret this is that Jesus used the familiar
        "father" even though he knew God was not of one gender, but I
        don't know his motives or reasoning from this example.  

        One possible principle is that Christians should adopt what
        is comfortable to the people that they are addressing.  An
        alternative principle is that one should select a familiar
        term with which oneself is comfortable.  Yet another possible
        principle to be derived from this example is that it really
        doesn't matter -- one if free to address God in masculine,
        feminine, and neutral terms.

        It is very hazardous to infer principle from example.


>     I concur that God is
>     genderless; however, I also believe that using the term, "she" in a way
>     to comply to the wiccan beliefs is very much what compromises the Jews
>     had to make within the Babylonian and Roman cultures.  In those cases,
>     "She" was reference to a false deity.  
  
        There are other religions with a male deity besides Jewish
        and Christian, but for some reason only the comparison to
        female deities gives you a problem -- why?

        Bob

| <<< Note 256.126 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I acknowledge the Hebrew culture was a patriarchal culture.  I also
| acknowledge that Jesus recognized terms as "The Father" and used the
| masculine form of the Hebrew language in referencing God.  Therefore,
| I believe we should follow likewise.

	For someone who you say is genderless, you want them to follow what
mere men said He was? Please tell me why it's ok to use the masculine version
for someone who is genderless and not the effeminate?



Glen

>	For someone who you say is genderless, you want them to follow what
>mere men said He was? Please tell me why it's ok to use the masculine version
>for someone who is genderless and not the effeminate?




 Hmmm...I seem to recall Jesus referring to God as "Father"..but, that was
 written in the Bible, so what do we know?



 Jim

	Jim, please keep up. Jack stated that God is genderless. 


Glen

    Glen, we cannot have dialog on this because you believe scripture to be
    the equal of Shelley, Keates, Aesop, Homer, and other great works.

	Jack, a discussion of your views (genderless God) has nothing to do
with the Bible. I think that was made apparent by Jim Henderson. So it can be
discussed. How do you come the the view that God is genderless, and why is it
ok to call this genderless God, He, and not She?

Z     How do you come the the view that God is genderless, and why is it
Z    ok to call this genderless God, He, and not She?
    
    Okay, I'll get into it.  The type of thing that made Patricia's blood
    boil....
    
    I believe God made a clear distiction in roles between the genders.  In
    1st Corinthians, Paul the prophet of God spoke of a hierarchy.  God the
    Father is the head of Jesus, Jesus is the head of the church.  Jesus is
    also defined as the head of Adam and Adam is identified as the head of
    Eve.  I see this as God's order of role and relationship.  You don't
    see scripture as God breathed, and therefore, you see the above as
    sexist.  This is why I said we couldn't really have dialog on this.
    
    Referring to God the Father as "Mom", or "She" identifies God against
    the order to which God set it up.  
    
    -Jack

    God is God.  It is proper to refer to God in the way Jesus did, as He
    is our example.  To try and tag gender onto God is akin to trying to
    make God in our own image, giving Him human attributes (this is
    backwards thinking).
    
    Using She/Mother seems to be a reference to Goddess worship, IMO.  Jesus did
    not call God "Mother", nor did He refer to God as "she".  In fact,
    there is no passage anywhere in the Bible that refers to the almighty
    in this way. 
    
    With this complete lack of feminine reference, as well as Jesus' own
    example, I fail to see why any Christian would refer to God using
    "mother", "she", or similar references.
    
    
    -steve

>    God is God.

    And what we call Her doesn't make any real difference.

    When one refers to The Almighty one knows s/he is refering
    to The Almighty.  The words aren't important.  What is in
    the heart is.
    
    Jesus never once programmed a computer and certainly never
    noted in the Christian Perspective notesfile.  Although I'm
    not certain, I don't think either is evil.

    Neither is using a different name for God.

    Tom

	Jack, thanks for clearing that up. I now understand where you are
coming from. I think Tom put it best when he said:

	   When one refers to The Almighty one knows s/he is refering
	   to The Almighty.  The words aren't important.  What is in
	   the heart is.


	I think this is key, because you know you have differences with other
Christians on issues. So you either have to think you have the only right way
for being a Christian, or that you know that God looks at the heart, and if a
mistake should happen, or you go down the wrong path, God will forgive you.


Glen

        There just seems to be so much of the attitude "They are
        wrong, therefore they cannot be right"  in this issue.

        Because traditional Christians so identify addressing God in
        feminine terms with paganism and witchcraft, which traditional
        Christians despise, therefore they cannot accept the
        validity, even in totally Christian contexts, of addressing
        God in the feminine.  Instead they must defend twisted
        positions such as God is not of one gender and yet God can
        only be addressed as male -- all to avoid agreeing with
        heathens on anything.

        Bob

    Actually, The Holy Spirit is used in the feminine and in the neuter at
    times in scripture.
    
    I don't believe Tom, for example, is condoning wiccan philosophies by
    saying, "she".  I think Tom is just being considerate...right Tom? 
    Considerate toward those who believe in Goddess worship.  
    
    I believe God's nature is the same in both testaments, and I also
    believe that had it not been for grace, I myself would have been
    condemned 100 times over...every month!  At the same time, I also
    believe that even though grace is upon us constantly, I believe we are
    called to "...press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward
    call..."  
    
    I don't believe that creedance toward other faiths, i.e. called God
    "she" to make Wiccan believers feel accepted is a calling toward
    holiness.  I believe there is an unequal yoking here.
    
    -Jack

>    I don't believe Tom, for example, is condoning wiccan philosophies by
>    saying, "she".  I think Tom is just being considerate...right Tom? 
>    Considerate toward those who believe in Goddess worship.  

Almost there, Jack.

I'm trying to be considerate to women in general.

With all the "He" this and "Him" that I understand that
after a while women start to feel excluded, Christian or 
Pagan.  And so I intermingle the pronouns.

Tom

    I have become comfortable with using the Hebrew word "Adonai," a word
    used in place of the sacred name.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

| <<< Note 256.139 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


| I don't believe Tom, for example, is condoning wiccan philosophies by
| saying, "she".  I think Tom is just being considerate...right Tom?
| Considerate toward those who believe in Goddess worship.

	Please read what I quoted Tom on in note .137. Thank you.



Glen

    .140
    
    Why would women feel excluded?  This is the point I do not understand. 
    Even if God WAS male (and I'm certainly not suggesting that God has
    gender), it would change NOTHING.  Grace is still there.  Jesus still
    died for our sins.  God still loves us all equally.
    
    All I'm saying is it makes much more sense to refer to God in the same
    manner as the prophets and Jesus (our example to follow) did, than it
    does to create new terminology that suits *our* personal sensibilities. 
    
    
    -steve

    > Why would women feel excluded?  This is the point I do not understand.

    Well perhaps you can be gracious then and refrain from criticizing that
    which you do not understand.   

    > All I'm saying is it makes much more sense to...

    It makes much more sense *to you*.   Please keep in mind that things
    aren't automatically wrong or bad just because they *don't* make sense
    to you.

    /Greg

    Jesus never had a period.  Jesus never had PMS.  Jesus was never
    considered "barren."  Jesus never became pregnant, gave birth to
    a child or gave birth to a stillborn child.
    
    Jesus was never encouraged to adopt the role of helpmate to a man.
    
    Jesus was not held back from teaching in the synagogue because of his
    gender.
    
    Richard
    

    Steve,
    
    I can't speak for other women, but I will speak for myself.  Throughout
    my years involved n Christianity I did feel excluded, sort of in an
    "Animal Farm" way.  Humans are all equal before the christian god, but
    for some reason men became more equal than women in the church I was
    dragged to as a child.  Women couldn't teach coed bible classes to
    people over the age of 12, as Paul had said something about women
    teaching men.  Women were allowed no voice in the church, except about
    the nurserey, unless it was to clean up the mess the "important"
    figures of the church left after deacon and elder's meetings.  My
    father was asked to control my mother when she offered to teach the
    elders how to put their coffee cups in the dishwasher and pour water in
    the urn so that the coffee dregs wouldn't stick to the pot and make for
    a messy and unpleasant cleanup.  One has to wonder how badly they
    would have reacted had they known my dad always made breakfast at our
    home, AND CLEANED IT UP!
    
    The bible has been used to exclude women from leadership roles in many
    churches, has been used to shut women up, even when they had valid
    points, and has been used IMO to make women into second-class citizens. 
    More inclusionary language might help women to reach their full
    potential within the church, as it has within pagan circles.  
    
    To me it is a wonder that more women haven't left the churches, as I
    did.  I have found a home in the pagan community where my relationship
    with her is happy and loving, and if I wish to sing or dance in my
    celebration of being one of her kids, no one gives me a second look,
    and if I teach my little bit of understanding of Mom and her consort to
    anyone of any age, it isn't considered an abomination by some book of
    shadows written by long dead men.  
    
    It is no surprise to me that Jesu would have referred to g-d as father
    as he had a flesh and blood mother.  In other traditions it is g-d who
    gives birth to the world and all that is on it, with the help of her
    consort.  
    
    I have made no secret of the fact that I believe far too many
    christians are worshipping the book instead of their understanding of
    their diety.  I believe it was the same in the sect I was brought up
    in.  I think it is a shame that these people expounded on the wonders
    of a relationship with a living god, but, as far as I can see, never
    experienced the joy that IMO comes with that relationship.
    
    meg

    .144
    
>    It makes much more sense *to you*.   Please keep in mind that things
>    aren't automatically wrong or bad just because they *don't* make sense
>    to you.

    And who said they were.  Speaking as a Christian, I see the use of
    feminine address as contrary to the Bible.  Others who consider
    themselves Christians should be concerned with this.  Creating
    terminology to suit out own sensibilities may lead to, or be a form of, 
    idol or false god worship (creating God in our own image/pagan
    reference).  That is all.
    
    My concern is not for my own sensibilities, but for the above concerns.
    
    Of course, you failed to answer the question.  How is referring to God
    as "Father" (the same way Jesus referred to Him) exclusionary?  To me,
    it is feminist nonsense (defined by me as "feminism over doctrine"-
    which placed our own sensibilities above that of God's word).
    
    
    -steve

    .146
    
    It is a shame that you felt left out in the church you attended, Meg. 
    I do appreciate your response, FWIW.  However, you have not answered
    the question posed.  Why is referring to God as "Father" exclusionary? 
    It is the way Jesus referred to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-
    and Jesus is the example for all Christians to follow.
    
    
    -steve

    RE: steve

    Well I see a couple of areas of misunderstanding.

    First, you seem to believe this is mainly about some people's
    "sensibilities" and imply they are unimportant - actually you
    more than *imply*.  You state outright that this is "feminist
    nonsense."  

    I find this interesting in light of your admitted lack of
    understanding.  One normally refrains from calling a misunderstood 
    position, "nonsense."

    Second, you build on this misunderstanding of the motives of
    those using feminine pronouns, and suggest the possibility of
    idol worship.

    Third (and in response to your direct question: "How is referring to
    God as "Father" exclusionary?").... I think the argument has shifted 
    a bit.  Someone said they use feminine pronouns so women would not feel 
    excluded.   I don't think this implies that the singular case of 
    referring to God as "Father" is exclusionary.  I think the feelings of 
    exclusion come (as indicated in Meg's response) from the exclusive use 
    of male pronouns in a male dominated environment.  I think these
    feelings are supported when we witness the vociferous objections to any 
    attempt to speak of the genderless God in anything other than male terms.

    /Greg

    

    Greg:
    
    FWIW, I believe gender does play an important role in the
    distinguishing of God's plan.
    
    I am of the belief that men are called to spiritual leadership in the
    family.  As Paul mentions in one of his epistles, God the Father is the
    head of the son (Jesus), Jesus is the head of Adam, and Adam was the
    head of Eve.  
    
    Now there is no question that this is being perceived as blatant
    sexism...we've been down this road many times.  I do believe however
    that A man in the family unit holds this responsibility; however, the
    man is also incomplete without the wife.  
    
    I believe God is referred to as The Father for this specific reason. 
    It is a picture of Spiritual leadership.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I think you have been pretty clear as to why you believe
    the use of "Father" is appropriate.  I have no argument with your
    reasoning.

    What is not clear, however, is why the occasional use of "Mother" or
    "She" when referring to God is *always* inappropriate.

    When you speak of God do you always speak in terms relating to 
    God's spiritual leadership?  Are there times when you are trying
    to convey a different aspect of God's nature?

    It seems to me that if God is indeed genderless, or more properly,
    inclusive of both genders, then there may be times when it is
    entirely appropriate to speak of "Her" - times when you are speaking
    of characteristics that tend toward the feminine.

    And if you are speaking of more....generic traits, such as God's
    love for humankind (a trait found in both men and women), then I
    don't see why saying "She loves us" is any more or less appropriate
    than "He loves us" - both mean the same thing.

    /Greg

    Greg:
    
    I've heard it said that the Holy Spirit in scripture has been addressed
    in the feminine by the original greek translation.  I don't have exact
    knowledge of this.  
    
    In the long run, the whole matter is going to be of no significance.  I
    do believe however that God uses pictures to illustrate things...like
    Jonah's three day experience equated to Jesus three days of death, etc.
    
    Do you remember the incident in the OT when the Hebrews were wandering
    and complaining to Moses they had no water?  This happened on two
    occasions.  On the first occasion, God told Moses to strike the rock
    and water would come out.  The second time was quite interesting.  God
    specifically told Moses to SPEAK TO THE ROCK, and water would come
    forth.  I believe God was trying to give a picture here.  The first
    incident signifying justification by the law (by works), and the second
    was justification by grace.  Speaking to the rock just as we can ask
    Christ to come into our lives was the picture. 
    
    Instead of following God's command, Moses struck the rock out of anger
    toward his people.  The result...God forbade Moses from crossing the
    Jordan.  This was a punishment for a simple disobedience.
    
    All I'm trying to say here is that God illustrates his plan to us in 
    different ways.  To refer to God as "She", signifies a perverting of
    God's illustration...to me anyways.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    re: Greg
    
    
>    Well I see a couple of areas of misunderstanding.

    Yes, apparently we do at that.
    
>    First, you seem to believe this is mainly about some people's
>    "sensibilities" and imply they are unimportant - actually you
>    more than *imply*.  You state outright that this is "feminist
>    nonsense."  

    First, it IS about sensibilities (the feeling of exclusion), and they
    ARE unimportant when looking at doctrine (context is so important in
    these discussion).  The "feminist nonsense" comment was within the
    context of "doctrine", referring to Christians who cave in to the
    political nonsense that has obvious roots in the feminist movement.
    
    If God was referred to as "She" or "Mother" within the Bible, I would
    address God in that manner.
    
>    I find this interesting in light of your admitted lack of
>    understanding.  One normally refrains from calling a misunderstood 
>    position, "nonsense."

    My lack of understanding has more to do with the mentality behind the
    use of feminine terms.  Doctrinally, I can unequivically state it is
    nonsense- and this is the context of which I make this comment.
    
    (again..context IS important)
    
>    Second, you build on this misunderstanding of the motives of
>    those using feminine pronouns, and suggest the possibility of
>    idol worship.

    The motives are transparent- it is the mentality that creates them that
    confuses me.  The idol worship, within the context of my
    statement, is making God into your own image, or into an image of yoru
    creation- this IS a form of idol worship.  Perhaps you didn't realize this?
    
    This may not be the case, but it is a possibility that needs to be
    addressed.
    
>    Third (and in response to your direct question: "How is referring to
>    God as "Father" exclusionary?").... I think the argument has shifted 
>    a bit.  Someone said they use feminine pronouns so women would not feel 
>    excluded.   I don't think this implies that the singular case of 
>    referring to God as "Father" is exclusionary.  I think the feelings of 
>    exclusion come (as indicated in Meg's response) from the exclusive use 
>    of male pronouns in a male dominated environment.  
    
    Following the examples given by Jesus and the prophets is not
    exclusionary.  I'm sorry that some people think it is.
    
>    I think these
>    feelings are supported when we witness the vociferous objections to any 
>    attempt to speak of the genderless God in anything other than male terms.

    My objections, which I've made abundantly clear, are based in doctrine. 
    I am not attempting to deal with the emoting about exclusion and such,
    I am simply stating that feminine references are NOT supported in the
    Bible, and *could* be a form of- or lead to- idol worship (creating God
    in your own image or in an image of your creation).
    
    My motivation is one of warning... I would not like to see anyone get
    caught in the spiral of idolatry.  It begins with trivial things, and
    leads down the wrong path.  It also puts self in the center, rather
    than God.  If you (generic) feel excluded, perhaps you need to focus less 
    on self and more on God. 
    
    
    -steve

    My goodness, Steve, I'm not doing well with you today.

>    First, it IS about sensibilities (the feeling of exclusion), and they
>    ARE unimportant when looking at doctrine (context is so important in

    Hmmm... I thought we were supposed to be subservient to God.
    When did doctrine take precedence?

>    these discussion).  The "feminist nonsense" comment was within the
>    context of "doctrine", referring to Christians who cave in to the
>    political nonsense that has obvious roots in the feminist movement.

    Just because feminists believe it doesn't mean it's wrong or evil.
    
>    If God was referred to as "She" or "Mother" within the Bible, I would
>    address God in that manner.

    Ok, don't.
    

>    The motives are transparent- it is the mentality that creates them that
>    confuses me.  The idol worship, within the context of my
>    statement, is making God into your own image, or into an image of yoru
>    creation- this IS a form of idol worship.  Perhaps you didn't realize this?
>    
>    This may not be the case, but it is a possibility that needs to be
>    addressed.

    When I address God I am not confused as to whom I am talking to.
    I hope you don't have a problem.
    
>    Following the examples given by Jesus and the prophets is not
>    exclusionary.  I'm sorry that some people think it is.

    Well, if you wore a bra you might feel different, or you might
    not.
    
>    I am simply stating that feminine references are NOT supported in the
>    Bible, and *could* be a form of- or lead to- idol worship (creating God
>    in your own image or in an image of your creation).

    I don't follow the logic here.  Please outline the step involved.
    
>    My motivation is one of warning... I would not like to see anyone get
>    caught in the spiral of idolatry.  It begins with trivial things, and
>    leads down the wrong path.  

    Once again, what are we getting ourselves into?  How does this work?

    Tom

re Note 256.154 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

>     Hmmm... I thought we were supposed to be subservient to God.
>     When did doctrine take precedence?

        The problem with doctrine, Tom, is not the doctrine per se
        but the fact that some people cannot see beyond the doctrine
        to the God who is the whole purpose and objective of
        doctrine.  This becomes doubly dangerous because those
        persons are not only cut off most of the possibilities for
        relationship with God but also are entirely dependent upon
        their own understanding of doctrine.  They are like people
        wandering in the desert, seeing a sign that there is an oasis
        nearby, but dying of thirst because they stay at the sign --
        mere confidence about the oasis isn't enough to save them!

        Bob

		:-)

    .155
    
    In response to you and Tom....
    
    Doctrine, in my usage (which I appologise for not makeing clear, should
    this be a point of confusion), is God's Word- the Bible.  All beliefs
    need to be tested by the fire of God's truth.  
    
    The analogy of waiting at the sign while dying of thirst is not one that 
    addresses my concerns in this topic.  You make God's Word out to be
    something rigid and incomplete...I do no believe this to be the truth. 
    Looking beyond the Bible for spiritual truths can be a dangerous thing,
    as the great deceiver is ready to tug your emotions and draw you away
    from the truth.  This is why God's Word needs to be our spiritual
    filter- to test the spirits of what we encounter/discover.  
    
    Why go outside God's Word?  Live it, follow it.  Your path to
    discovering God is already there, you need only grasp it.  There are 
    truths within it just waiting to be discovered.  Truths that are 
    trustworthy as they are not inventions of man's imagination or emotions.
    
    I realize we are discussing this issue from two differnent mind-sets,
    and to be honest, I don't think I can make anyone understand what comes
    to me intuitively.  The Holy Spirit reveals the truth to us as we study
    God's Word and follow its precepts.  When we have an honest desire to
    know the truth, and are willing to put our own perceptions and
    prejudices aside, it is amazing what kinds of understanding can be sent
    our way.  I think that this *honest* desire is a key element, as God forces
    nothing upon us. 
    
    
    
    -steve

    RE: .153

    > First, it IS about sensibilities (the feeling of exclusion), and they
    > ARE unimportant when looking at doctrine (context is so important
    > in these discussion).

    Context is so important, in fact, that you are going to have to explain
    what you mean by suggesting one abandon their feelings when examining
    doctrine.  The implication is that God would prefer we understand Her
    will thru logic and reason alone - but we know faith is essential and
    that it does not rest solely on logic and reason.  So feelings and 
    emotions MUST play a role.  Pray tell, when can one reasonably consider
    'sensibilities' when discussing doctrine?

    > My lack of understanding has more to do with the mentality behind the
    > use of feminine terms. 

    Well I maintain you will never come to anything approaching an 
    understanding of this...mentality, as you call, if  you go around
    calling other's feelings, "nonsense."

    Why should anyone bother to enlighten you when you show such
    arrogant disrespect?

    > The motives are transparent

    Really?  You now understand the motives of everyone who expresses
    a desire to refer to God in feminine terms?   Care to share?

    > The idol worship, within the context of my statement, is making God 
    > into your own image, or into an image of your creation- this IS a 
    > form of idol worship.  

    I don't see how referring to God as "She" is in any way an act of
    creation.  Christian belief is that God Himself created the genders, 
    male and female (and some variations in between, it would seem, if 
    one looks at the medical record...but I digress).  I certainly 
    understand the desire to avoid idolatry, but one needn't be paranoid 
    and imagine golden calves lurking around every corner.   

    I might also point out that someone can just as easily picture himself 
    a god while referring to the almighty as "He" as another might picture
    herself a goddess while referring to the almighty as "She" - and unless
    you know what is in the heart of the individual, the use of the pronoun
    *ALONE* is hardly proof of wrongdoing.   It simply is what it is; a
    means of referring to God.  

    >> Third (and in response to your direct question: "How is referring to
    >> God as "Father" exclusionary?").... I think the argument has shifted
    >> a bit.  Someone said they use feminine pronouns so women would not feel
    >> excluded.   I don't think this implies that the singular case of
    >> referring to God as "Father" is exclusionary.  I think the feelings of
    >> exclusion come (as indicated in Meg's response) from the exclusive use
    >> of male pronouns in a male dominated environment.
    >
    >    Following the examples given by Jesus and the prophets is not
    >    exclusionary.  I'm sorry that some people think it is.

    Hmm - was what I wrote unclear?  I thought I *said* that it isn't
    the simple practice alone that is exclusionary, but rather the over-all
    pattern in the *CONTEXT* (remember that word?) of a male dominated
    environment.  And no one has said that this is some kind of universal
    problem that can only be solved by having *everyone* start praying to
    "God the Mother."   

    > I am simply stating that feminine references are NOT supported in the
    > Bible, 

    Nor are they categorically unsupported or condemned.

    /Greg

    Re feminism and calling god with female as well as male terms.  That
    would have come to a shock to my great, great grandmother, who is the
    one who taught my mother the bedtime prayer for children that starts
    "Father, Mother God...."  Oh, but she was a Christian Science
    Practicioner, maybe she was a feminist?  She taught in her church, and
    not just to children or other women.  
    
    meg

    Greg,
    
    I have this uncanny feeling that neither one of us is making any
    progress in this discussion.  You don't seem to understand my point,
    and I have apparently missed yours with my last note.  
    
    I think I may bow out and migrate to a more important topic of
    discussion.  This one, quite frankly, isn't anything of great
    importance, as long as those using the feminine address are doing so
    with a pure motives.  This is something I simply do not know, so
    further argument is unlikely to be beneficial. 
    
    Of course, pure motives are not proof against anything.  Idolotry is a
    subtle snare that grabs you when you least expect it.  Unfortunately,
    idol worship is looked upon by most literally, rather than spiritually,
    so many are caught unawares due to ignorance of this term. 
    
    My personal belief coincides with Jack Martin's, that God is the
    spiritual head of His extended family.  You should refer to God in a
    proper fashion, befitting His leadership role.  "Father" is the
    referece Jesus uses, which also coincides with Biblical principles of
    the man being the spiritual head of his house.  I believe referring to
    God in the feminine is akin to coming before a king and calling him by
    his first name, rather than addressing him properly,  because YOU are
    not comfortable with titles of authority.
    
    
    -steve                              

    >  ....as long as those using the feminine address are doing so
    >  with a pure motives. This is something I simply do not know, so
    >  further argument is unlikely to be beneficial.
    
    I think all that has been asked here is that people be given
    the benefit of the doubt.
    
    I only jumped in to this discussion because I thought it strange
    that people would expend so much energy attacking something that
    apparently was not clearly understood, nor clearly prohibited by
    Scripture.
    
    /Greg
    
    P.S. FWIW I thought some progress was being made.....