Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

God the Father is also, in many ways, our Mother.

His image as Father is paramount -- the image of creating everything that
exists out of nothing is the basis of our belief in an immanent and
transcendent God.

His image as Mother should remain as a description of attributes.  We are
not to change the basic theology of the Abrahamic ecumene by claiming that
God creates by giving birth.

Women, created by God, share with God in creation in a way men will never
be able to do by giving birth to future generations.  This is a great
privilege, and one which should not be reduced to a horrible chore, to be
avoided if at all possible.

/john

    >>  "Our Father" or "Our Mother", what's the difference?
    
    It is the rejection of the term used by Christians from the 1st century
    to the present and breaks the connection that we Christians have with
    Christ who taught us to pray to Our Father in heaven (Mt 6:9, Lk 11:2),
    and makes the connection to the pagans who worshiped many goddesses. So
    it is an insult to invoke "Our Father" and "Our Mother" as one faith.
    
    >>  Does "Father" carry a more accurate connotation of Who/What God is
    than "Mother"?
    
    God is neither male nor female. This, in fact, is the tradition of
    Christianity.  Since God is the creator not the created, God transcends
    gender and all physical attributes.
    
    >>  Was "Father" used in ancient times because the men of the time
    couldn't handle a feminine God?
    
    Goddesses were common enough in ancient times.  The men "could handle"
    a feminine God.  The unseen, unnamed God of the Jews was the God that
    men "couldn't handle".
    
    >> Does gender matter as long as it doesn't get in the way of what
    *really* matters?  Communion with God?
    
    Gender doesn't "matter".  What matters is that we remain faithful to
    Christ who taught us to prayer to Our Father.  What do you think really
    matters?  How do you define "Communion with God"?
    
    >> Is communing with a "female" god communing with a false god?
    
    What does "communing" mean?  pray to? worship in liturgy? If the person
    who is doing the "communing" rejects Mt 6:9-15 as "how one is to pray"
    then they "commune" with a god other than the God I woship.

    The use of the term Mother is not a "rejection" of a term used by
    Christians.  Praying to God the Mother is offered as an alternative,
    not as a replacement.  I haven't seen anyone suggest here that one
    should *not* pray to God the Father, merely that it is also possible to
    pray to God the mother; this implies that praying to the Mother is not
    inconsistent with what Jesus taught, unless someone knows of a place
    where Jesus explicitly forbade praying to God the Mother.  This claim
    that because Jesus offered a prayer to God the Father as an example of
    how to pray, this implies an exclusion of other ways to pray to God is
    rather curious in light of the fact that the Lord's prayer was clearly
    offered as an *example* of how to pray, and I don't see all the other
    aspects of the Lord's Prayer being offered as hard and fixed rules of
    what to say in a prayer.  Or are we all supposed to say "Give us this
    day our daily bread" each and every time we pray to God?  I haven't
    heard anyone make *that* suggestion.  This sounds like a clear case of
    picking and choosing from an example prayer and selecting only a
    certain aspect of that prayer as a fixed rule, while recognizing the
    rest of it as an example.

    This obsessive intolerance with alternative ways of addressing God is
    truly amazing.  

    -- Mike

	I think that prayer should be to the Father... 
		and meditation should be with the Mother.

I think topic 677 is closely related to 655 (which got almost no replies).

As with most religious questions, it is a matter of intent.

If the worshipper is looking for the motherly aspects of the God YHWH,
we have only a question of personal preference in devotion to the One God.

But if the worshipper is looking to reject the Fatherhood of God or
is looking to depart from belief in the God YHWH, and to restore the
false goddesses of the pagan religions then we have a case of rejection
of the first and second commandments.

/john

    Mike,

    I don't believe any of the respondents have been obsessive.

    Patrick,

>    What do you think really
>    matters?  How do you define "Communion with God"?

    Love God, Love thy neighbor. (neighbor I define as: those with 
    whom you share this planet)  This is what matters.  Nothing else
    does.  Anything that helps in this regard is "good."  All that
    gets in the way is sin.  If refering to God as "Mother" or *anything*
    else actually helps someone Love God then it is good.

    What is "Communion with God"?  I hope you have a definition.  Mine
    is a state of being where I am aware of God and all of my being is
    consumed by this awareness of God.  It's kinda like being in love,
    only with God :-)  This is loving God.  This is surrender to God.
    
    If I'm so wrapped up in myself that I can't be in love with a male
    God, I believe God will be patient, wear the face I give Her and
    embrace me.  But after a while He will show me His other faces....
    when I'm ready :-)  The face I put on Her can only be temporary.
    A face is transitory.  God endures.  S/He is Whom I must Love.
    
    Tom

Note 677.1    
COVERT::COVERT 
    
>His image as Father is paramount -- the image of creating everything that
>exists out of nothing is the basis of our belief in an immanent and
>transcendent God.

    This kind of confuses me...I don't understand how that is a "fatherly"
    role.  Certainly, it doesn't fit the role I've seen my father or any
    other father for that matter fitting in the "creation of life."  Both
    male and female contribute orginially equal parts to the process of
    conception, and after that, the female goes through most of the work.
    
    "Creation of life" is at best a 50/50 proposition from the contribution
    viewpoint, and from the who-actually-goes-through-the-process" aspect
    it is certianly slanted more to the female.  That's probably where the
    concept of Goddess-based religions orgininates.
    
    God the Father as life-creater strikes me more reasonably as a product
    of the culture where it developed.  Early scientists, looking at sperm
    through the first microscopes, thought they saw a fully-formed fetus
    inside the head of the sperm.  The role of the mother was, then,
    essentially to incubate the fetus until it was full sized, but her
    contribution to the conception was not acknowledged...life came from
    the man even though it clearly thrived inside of woman.
    
    Isn't it possible that the image of God the Father as "life-creator"
    comes from the same set of societal values that led to the above
    thinking?
    
    That doesn't mean that God as Father would not or does not have
    powerful connotations and roles -- fathers are important too.  But to
    call the "father" the "life creator" is to "hijack" that role from
    women or at the very least deny their participation in it.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

re Note 677.2 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     >>  "Our Father" or "Our Mother", what's the difference?
>     
>     It is the rejection of the term used by Christians from the 1st century
>     to the present and breaks the connection that we Christians have with
>     Christ who taught us to pray to Our Father in heaven (Mt 6:9, Lk 11:2),
>     and makes the connection to the pagans who worshiped many goddesses. So
>     it is an insult to invoke "Our Father" and "Our Mother" as one faith.
  
        I don't understand your understanding of "the connection"
        with Christ -- is that indeed our connection with Christ --
        that we use the same word to address God as he did?

        Pat, do you realize how impoverished and petty you make
        Christianity appear when you write things like that??!

        Bob

    I don't understand why you don't understand that we Christians are
    connected by time and space in many profound ways.

    We set ourselves apart from the non-Christians because we follow Christ
    who said he is the way, the truth, and the life.  We pray as Christ
    taught us to pray.

re Note 677.9 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     I don't understand why you don't understand that we Christians are
>     connected by time and space in many profound ways.

        What I find hardest to understand is your claim that saying
        "Our Mother" in and of itself disconnects us from Christ.

>     We pray as Christ taught us to pray.

        And in many other ways, besides.  (You don't belong to one of
        those extremist sects that ONLY prays the Lord's Prayer, do
        you?)

        Bob

God the blessed Trinity, who is everlasting being, just as he is eternal
from without beginning, just so was it in his eternal purpose to create
human nature, which fair nature was first prepared for his own Son, the
second person; and when he wished, by full agreement of the whole Trinity
he created us all once.  And in our creating he joined and united us to
himself, and through this union we are kept as pure and as noble as we were
created.  By the power of that same precious union we love our Creator and
delight in him, praise him and thank him and endlessly rejoice in him.  And
this is the work which is constantly performed in every soul which will be
saved, and this is the godly will mentioned before.

And so in our making, God almighty is our loving Father, and God all wisdom
is our loving Mother, with the love and the goodness of the Holy Spirit,
which is all one God, one Lord.  And in the joining and the union he is our
very true spouse and we his beloved wife and his fair maiden, with which
wife he was never displeased; for he says: I love you and you love me, and
our love will never divide in two.

I contemplated the work of all the blessed Trinity, in which contemplation
I saw and understood these three properties: the property of the fatherhood,
and the property of the motherhood, and the property of the lordship in one
God.  In our almighty Father we have our protection and our bliss, as regards
our natural substance, which is ours by our creation from without beginning;
and in the second person, in knowledge and wisdom we have our perfection, as
regards our sensuality, our restoration and our salvation, for he is our
Mother, brother and saviour; and in our good Lord the Holy Spirit we have
our reward and our gift for our living and our labour, endlessly surpassing
all that we desire in his marvellous courtesy, out of his great plentiful
grace.  For all our life consists of three: In the first we have our being,
and in the second we have our increasing, and in the third we have our
fulfillment.  The first is nature, the second is mercy, the third is grace.

As to the first, I saw and understood that the high might of the Trinity is
our Father, and the deep wisdom of the Trinity is our Mother, and the great
love of the Trinity is our Lord; and all these we have in nature and in our
substantial creation.  And furthermore I saw that the second person, who is
our Mother, substantially the same beloved person, has now become our
mother sensually, because we are double by God's creating, that is to say
substantial and sensual.  Our substance is the higher part, which we have
in our Father, God almighty; and the second person of the Trinity is our
Mother in nature in our substantial creation, in whom we are founded and
rooted, and he is our Mother of mercy in taking our sensuality.  And so our
Mother is working on us in various ways, in whom our parts are kept
undivided; for in our Mother Christ we profit and increase, and in mercy he
reforms and restores us, and by the power of his Passion, his death and his
Resurrection he unites us to our substance.  So our Mother works in mercy
on all his beloved children who are docile and obedient to him, and grace
works with mercy, and especially in two properties, as it was shown, which
working belongs to the third person, the Holy Spirit.  He works, rewarding
and giving.  Rewarding is a gift for our confidence which the Lord makes to
those who have laboured; and giving is a courteous act which he does
freely, by grace, fulfilling and surpassing all that creatures deserve.

Thus in our Father, God almighty, we have our being, and in our Mother of
mercy we have our reforming and our restoring, in whom our parts are united
and all made perfect man, and through the rewards and the gifts of grace of
the Holy Spirit we are fulfilled.  And our substance is in our Father, God
almighty, and our substance is in our Mother, God all wisdom, and our
substance is in our Lord God, the Holy Spirit, all goodness, for our
substance is whole in each person of the Trinity, who is one God.  And our
sensuality is only in the second person, Christ Jesus, in whom is the
Father and the Holy Spirit; and in him and by him we are powerfully taken
out of hell and out of the wretchedness on earth, and gloriously brought up
into heaven, and blessedly united to our substance, increased in riches and
nobility by all the power of Christ and by the grace and operation of the
Holy Spirit.

					-- Dame Julian of Norwich
					   "Showings" chapter 58

And we have all this bliss by mercy and grace, and this kind of bliss we
never could have had and known, unless that property of goodness which is
in God had been opposed, through which we have this bliss.  For wickedness
has been suffered to rise in opposition to goodness; and the goodness of
mercy and grace opposed that wickedness, and turned everything to goodness
and honour for all who will be saved.  For this is that property in God
which opposes good to evil.  So Jesus Christ, who opposes good to evil is
our true Mother.  We have our being from him, where the foundation of
motherhood begins, with all the sweet protection of love which endlessly
follows.

As truly as God is our Father, so truly is God our Mother, and he revealed
that in everything, and especially in these sweet words where he says: I am
he; that is to say: I am he, the power and goodness of fatherhood; I am
he, the wisdom and lovingness of motherhood; I am he, the light and the
grace which is all blessed love; I am he, the Trinity; I am he, the unity;
I am he, the great supreme goodness of every kind of thing; I am he who
makes you to love; I am he who makes you to long; I am he, the endless
fulfilling of all true desires.  For where the soul is highest, noblest,
most honourable, still it is lowest, meekest, and mildest.

And from this foundation in substance we have all the powers of our
sensuality by the gift of nature, and by the help and the furthering of
mercy and grace, without which we cannot profit.  Our great Father,
almighty God, who is being, knows us and loved us before time began.  Out
of this knowledge, in his most wonderful deep love, by the prescient
eternal counsel of all the blessed Trinity, he wanted the second person to
become our Mother, our brother and our saviour.  From this it follows that
as truly as God is our Father, so truly is God our Mother.  Our Father
wills, our Mother works, our good Lord the Holy Spirit confirms.  And
therefore it is our part to love our God in whom we have our being,
reverently thanking and praising him for our creation, mightily praying to
our Mother for mercy and pity, and to our Lord the Holy Spirit for help and
grace.  For in these three is all our life: nature, mercy, and grace, of
which we have mildness, patience, and pity, and hatred of sin and
wickedness; for the virtues must of themselves hate sin and wickedness.

And so Jesus is our true Mother in nature by our first creation, and he is
our true Mother in grace by his taking our created nature.  All the lovely
works and all the sweet loving offices of beloved motherhood are
appropriated to the second person, for him we have this godly will, whole
and safe forever, both in nature and in grace, from his own goodness proper
to him.

I understand three ways of contemplating motherhood in God.  The first is
the foundation of our nature's creation; the second is his taking of our
nature, where the motherhood of grace begins; the third is the motherhood
at work.  And in that, by the same grace, everything is penetrated, in
length and in breadth, in height and in depth without end; and it is all
one love.

					-- Dame Julian of Norwich
					   "Showings" chapter 59

But now I should say a little more about this penetration, as I understood
our Lord to mean: How we are brought back by the motherhood of mercy and
grace into our natural place, in which we were created by the motherhood of
love, a mother's love which never leaves us.

Our Mother in nature, our Mother in grace, because he wanted altogether to
become our Mother in all things, made the foundation of his work most
humbly and most mildly in the maiden's womb.  And he revealed that in the
first revelation, when he brought that meek maiden before the eye of my
understanding in the simple stature which she had when she conceived; that
is to say that our great God, the supreme wisdom of all things, arrayed and
prepared himself in this humble place, all ready in our poor flesh, himself
to do the service and the office of motherhood in everything.  The mother's
service is nearest, readiest, and surest: nearest because it is most natural,
readiest because it is most loving, and surest because it is truest.  No one
ever might or could perform this office fully, except only him.  We know
that all our mothers bear us for pain and for death.  O, what is that?  But
our true Mother Jesus, he alone bears us for joy and for endless life,
blessed may he be.  So he carries us within him in love and travail, until
the full time when he wanted to suffer the sharpest thorns and cruel pains
that ever were or will be, and at the last he died.  And when he had
finished, and had borne us so for bliss, still all this could not satisfy
his wonderful love.  And he revealed this in these great surpassing words
of love: If I could suffer more, I would suffer more.  He could not die any
more, but he did not want to cease working; therefore he must needs nourish
us, for the precious love of motherhood has made him our debtor.

The mother can give her child to suck of her milk, but our precious Mother
Jesus can feed us with himself, and does, most courteously and most tenderly,
with the blessed sacrament, which is the precious food of true life; and with
all the sweet sacraments he sustains us most mercifully and graciously, and
so he meant in these blessed words, where he said: I am he whom Holy Church
preaches and teaches to you.  That is to say: All the health and the life of
the sacraments, all the power and the grace of my word, all the goodness which
is ordained in Holy Church for you, I am he.

The mother can lay her child tenderly to her breast, but our tender Mother
Jesus can lead us easily into his blessed breast through his sweet open
side, and show us there a part of the godhead and of the joys of heaven,
with inner certainty of endliss bliss.  And that he revealed in the tenth
revelation, giving us the same understanding in these sweet words which he
says: See, how I love you, looking into his blessed side, rejoicing.

This fair lovely word `mother' is so sweet and so kind in itself that it
cannot truly be said of anyone or to anyone except of him and to him who is
the true Mother of life and of all things.  To the property of motherhood
belong nature, love, wisdom and knowledge, and this is God.  For though it
may be so that our bodily bringing to birth is only little, humble and
simple in comparison with our spiritual bringing to birth, still it is he
who does it in the creatures by whom it is done.  The kind, loving mother
who knows and sees the need of her child guards it very tenderly, as the
nature and condition of motherhood will have.  And always as the child
grows in age and in stature, she acts differently, but she does not change
her love.  And when it is older, she allows it to be chastised to destroy
its faults, so as to make the child receive virtues and grace.  This work,
with everything which is lovely and good, our Lord performs in those by
whom it is done.  So he is our Mother in nature by the operation of grace
in the lower part, for love of the higher part.  And he wants us to know
it, for he wants to have all our love attached to him; and in this I saw
that every debt which we ow by God's command to fatherhood and motherhood
is fulfilled in truly loving God, which blessed love Christ works in us.
And this was revealed in everything, and especially in the great bounteous
words when he says: I am he whom you love.

					-- Dame Julian of Norwich
					   "Showings" chapter 60

re Note 677.13 by COVERT::COVERT:

> But
> our true Mother Jesus, he alone bears us for joy and for endless life,
> blessed may he be.  

        So is it OK to say "Mother Jesus", but Not OK to say "Our
        Mother"!!??

        (I actually have no problem with "Mother Jesus", but if this
        posting were anonymous, I would have assumed some sort of
        liberal feminist wrote this.)

        Bob

You'll note that Mother is used _only_ to describe attributes.

You'll note that it is always _He_ is our Mother.

You'll note that Julian expresses only completely orthodox trinitarian
theology.

/john

Actually there are many instances of the appropriation of female creative 
powers into male-centered religions...

;-)

Dorian

re Note 677.15 by COVERT::COVERT:

> You'll note that Mother is used _only_ to describe attributes.

        No -- it's also used to describe Jesus.  (Or, in your
        theology, is "Jesus" an attribute?)

> You'll note that it is always _He_ is our Mother.

        Yes, that's a conundrum -- a male described and addressed in
        female terms.

        Yes, you're right: "Goddess" is as appropriate as "God" to
        refer to the one who traditionally is called "the Father"

> You'll note that Julian expresses only completely orthodox trinitarian
> theology.
  
        My understanding of "orthodox trinitarian theology" is far
        inferior to yours -- I never, ever heard "Mother Jesus" used
        before.

        I would guess that "orthodox trinitarian theology" means
        whatever you want it to mean (and whatever I don't want??).

        Bob

re .17

-

    I feel somehow buried in someone else's words.

    
    
    
    
    
    
	I came across this in a Newletter recently and thought that it
    nicely summarizes a body of the arguements against addressing God in
    the feminine. This theological arguement 'stands' as a commonly held
    understanding even if the divine source of this message is not
    accepted:
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
(The following locution was given to "Leslie" on January 8, 1993. Leslie is a 
former Hungarian monk and retired professor now living in Virginia.)

My son, I see your troubled heart and the anxiety you experience each time 
during public worship when My Holy Words in the Scripture, especially those 
of the Gospel, are altered to please that vocal and loud minority in my Church, 
called the Feminist Movement of the New Agers. This is as offensive to me, I 
AM WHO AM, as it is to you, because my Words are eternal, transcendental 
and for ever unchangeable.  Ever since I created man in my own image, the Evil 
One is trying to destroy Me, as if it were possible, in my image. It started in 
Paradise, and it continues even unto this day. The very reason for this endless 
fury was, and still is, PRIDE!

Take your Bible my son and listen to Me, I AM WHO AM. I will teach you to 
understand what they do not grasp, and will show you how to defend yourself 
against  those who rewrite the Holy Writ to serve their own pride.

GEN 1:26  "Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."
GEN 1:27  "Male and female he created them."

In these few words the Holy Scripture instructs every one of the dual nature of 
man, i.e. spiritual and physical, bringing in focus the fact that gender 
distinction applies only to the body. As a result of this distinction, it is 
also true that I AM WHO AM have no gender as such, because  I AM the pure and 
uncreated Spirit. And since I created man in my own image, man's spirit is 
also without a gender distinction.

As far as the physical body is concerned, there are several reasons for my 
choice of male and female gender distinction. In blessing the first human pair,
I AM WHO AM  imparted to watch a very specific ability or attribute with the 
command:

GEN 1:28  "God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth 
and subdue it."

To the male I gave the divine power to BEGET, and to the female to CONCEIVE. 
These two obvious distinctions are either ignored, or taken so much for granted 
today that not second thought is given to the mysteries they embrace. 

Note! From the very beginning I now only chose to be identified with the 
attribute of the male gender to BEGET, but also what is more important, to 
mphasize that I was NEVER CONCEIVED, but rather without beginning, 
eternally I AM! Therefore, those who call me "Father and Mother" 
simultaneously are hopelessly confused. 

Furthermore, through the Third Person of your Triune God the specific 
attribute of the male gender is unmistakably revealed when Gabriel replied to 
Mary's pondering how she will be able to conceive without knowing man:

Luke 1:35  "The angel answered her: The Holy Spirit will come upon you and 
the power of the Most High will overshadow you; hence,  the holy offspring 
to be born will be called Son of God."

And thus the second Person of the genderless God with male attribute was 
born a MAN with male gender.

In my divine wisdom, however, to prevent the male gender to become superior 
to the female one, I elevated her to the most exalted height to which no male 
can ever aspire. Because of that a woman was able to conceive and give birth 
to God, but a man will never be able to beget God!

It is through the begetting power of man, however, that your God endows the 
offsprings with a genderless, immortal spirit. Briefly told, my son, this is 
the mystery of the creation of MAN!

re Note 677.20 by JUPITR::MNELSON:

> To the male I gave the divine power to BEGET, and to the female to CONCEIVE. 
> These two obvious distinctions are either ignored, or taken so much for granted 
> today that not second thought is given to the mysteries they embrace. 
> 
> Note! From the very beginning I now only chose to be identified with the 
> attribute of the male gender to BEGET, but also what is more important, to 
> mphasize that I was NEVER CONCEIVED, but rather without beginning, 
> eternally I AM! Therefore, those who call me "Father and Mother" 
> simultaneously are hopelessly confused. 

        Whatever spirit uttered this nonsense is hopelessly confused!

> In my divine wisdom, however, to prevent the male gender to become superior 
> to the female one, I elevated her to the most exalted height to which no male 
> can ever aspire. Because of that a woman was able to conceive and give birth 
> to God, but a man will never be able to beget God!

        So divine wisdom says that to prevent A from becoming
        superior to B, make B superior to A?  Or is it saying that to
        prevent all A from becoming superior to all B, make one B
        superior to all A?

        An easier way to solve this problem is what God did do --
        equality:  "there is neither male nor female."  That is God's
        solution to the problem of one gender becoming superior to
        another.

        Bob

    re: .21
    
    Neither gender is superior to the other; they are necessary to each
    other in God's plan and must work together to do His Will.
    
    There is an error which women are told to accept. That is, if God is
    not perceived as a woman, then we cannot know how to truely understand
    God or relate to God. 
    
    We are also told that unless we have this feminine god(ess) then men
    will also not understand the gentleness of God or other nurturing
    characteristics. Abuse of women supposedly stems from this.
    
    These are false and they promote division between men and women by
    saying, in effect, that we can't understand each other or our One God.
    
    The reason any and all sin is in the world is because people, and
    indeed Christians, fail to follow Christ and His Word. All the love
    and gentleness that any human being could ever need in their lives as
    a witness to proper love, caring, and service is given in the life of
    Jesus Christ. 
    
    Jesus, as a man, bears witness to all men concerning their Way of life.
    If women wish to truely have peace and respect then they should be
    preaching Jesus, not god(ess)/Mother-god. Point out to the Christian
    men in your lives the way that Jesus treated ALL people, his gentleness
    and his service to all. Point out his sacrifice for even those who
    hated and killed him. 
    
    We have One God and His grace, through faith to know, love and serve
    Him without altering His Words in order to make Him understandable,
    accessable, or loveable.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

Mary (.20)
    
<<(The following locution was given to "Leslie" on January 8, 1993. Leslie is a 
<<former Hungarian monk and retired professor now living in Virginia.)

If this or a similar 'given' message came from a so-called 'feminist 
newager', you would be the first to condemn or ridicule it.  But 
because it comes from someone who God has supposedly given 'authority' 
(a former Hungarian monk) to, you accept it verbatim.  Most *newagers* I 
know, would scrutinize this kind of message no matter which gender it 
'favored' and at the least realize that the personality/ego of the
'receiver' was refracted in the message.  One has to only read 
today's newspapers to see how little women are valued in this monk's 
part of the world to realize there is a hidden agenda in the 'message'.

At least /john Covert's quotes from Julian were balanced and gave food 
for thought.  I suspect the 'locution' you entered would make Jesus 
cringe.

Ro

I realize Mary needs no defense, but I felt movced to reply to .23.

>If this or a similar 'given' message came from a so-called 'feminist 
>newager', you would be the first to condemn or ridicule it.  But 

I've been following this conference for over a year and have *never*
seen Mary Nelson either condemn much less ridicule anyone here.  I 
can honestly say that there are very few individuals on either "side"
that I can say that about.

>because it comes from someone who God has supposedly given 'authority' 
>(a former Hungarian monk) to, you accept it verbatim.  Most *newagers* I 

Where did Mary state that she accepted the message verbatim?  And even 
if she does, that's her right and is between her and God.

>today's newspapers to see how little women are valued in this monk's 
>part of the world to realize there is a hidden agenda in the 'message'.

Ah, I see.  He's Hungarian and therefore devalues women and has a hidden
agenda.  Pretty intolerant statement, if you ask me.


>At least /john Covert's quotes from Julian were balanced and gave food 
>for thought.  I suspect the 'locution' you entered would make Jesus 
>cringe.

Only balanced quotes need apply.  That eliminates about 99% of what I 
read here.

Are we so busy trying not to be intolerant that we've forgotten how to 
be tolerant?


Sandy

Sandy (24),

Please reread my note as I did not say Mary ridiculed anyone, I said 
she ridiculed statements and since a topic I've entered has been 
ridiculed, I stand by by observation. 

<<Where did Mary state that she accepted the message verbatim?  And even 
<<if she does, that's her right and is between her and God.

Very interesting.  How come it is between Mary and God when she holds 
beliefs, but she does not give someone else that same courtesy.


<Ah, I see.  He's Hungarian and therefore devalues women and has a hidden
<agenda.  Pretty intolerant statement, if you ask me.

I'm saying that a person's culture has impact on their beliefs, that 
area of the world has some pretty chauvenistic views of women - 
whether the monk in question is one himself, only he and God know 
that ;')  but from the message he "channelled" he sounds to me 
that his personal biases were meshed in the message.  I don't believe 
that the monk is a pure channel of God's message anymore than I 
believe any of the newage channeller's to be so.  People are human and 
their 'stuff' gets mixed in with the message no matter how inspired or 
well-meaning, IMHO.  

<<Are we so busy trying not to be intolerant that we've forgotten how to 
<<be tolerant?

I'm sorry if my message sounded 'intolerant'...many of Mary's messages sound 
harsh and intolerant to me.  I found it quite surprising that Mary 
would not question the motives of the messsenger when she is quick to 
do that in other instances of opposing opinions.

Actually, I've been very tolerant of Mary's replies to me in the past. 
Turned the other cheek, as it were.  I was not being intolerant toward
her here, just making an observation. 

Ro

>Please reread my note as I did not say Mary ridiculed anyone, I said 
>she ridiculed statements and since a topic I've entered has been 
>ridiculed, I stand by by observation. 

Actually, I read both your and Mary's notes numerous time before I 
replied.  I wanted to make sure that I didn't jump to any conclusions. 
:^)  You did indeed state that Mary ridiculed a statement, not an 
individual.  However, I personally find that in many cases they are one 
and the same .  Just my perception.

<<Where did Mary state that she accepted the message verbatim?  And even 
<<if she does, that's her right and is between her and God.

>Very interesting.  How come it is between Mary and God when she holds 
>beliefs, but she does not give someone else that same courtesy.

I can't answer for Mary, but I can't recall that she's not extended 
that courtesy to others.  Our beliefs are just that: ours.  I may not 
agree with yours and I'm sure you don't agree with mine, but we all have 
the right to be wrong. :^)



>I'm saying that a person's culture has impact on their beliefs, that 
>area of the world has some pretty chauvenistic views of women - 
>whether the monk in question is one himself, only he and God know 
>that ;')  but from the message he "channelled" he sounds to me 
>that his personal biases were meshed in the message.  I don't believe 
>that the monk is a pure channel of God's message anymore than I 
>believe any of the newage channeller's to be so.  People are human and 
>their 'stuff' gets mixed in with the message no matter how inspired or 
>well-meaning, IMHO.  

Agreed.  But when you say that because he comes from a certain part of 
the world that has a history of intolerance for women and intimate that
his words should be viewed accordingly, aren't you doing the same 
things?  We all view the world through our own filters (I hate that word 
but can't think of another) and are probably all guilty of it.



>I'm sorry if my message sounded 'intolerant'...many of Mary's messages sound 
>harsh and intolerant to me.  I found it quite surprising that Mary 
>would not question the motives of the messsenger when she is quick to 
>do that in other instances of opposing opinions.

How many of us truly question the motives of the messenger when we agree 
with the message?  I have long questioned the motives of the author of 
the #4 bestseller and you advocate the book highly.  In the words of 
Harry Chapin, "You see what you want to see and you hear what you want 
to hear.  BTW, I include myself in that statement.

>Actually, I've been very tolerant of Mary's replies to me in the past. 
>Turned the other cheek, as it were.  I was not being intolerant toward
>her here, just making an observation. 

I guess the part I'm struggling with, Ro, is, depending on one which 
"side" one is one, one man's (figuratively speaking :^) ) observation is 
another man's intolerance.

Sandy

    re: .24 Thank you for the kind words, Sandy.
    
    re: .23 
    
    Ro,
    
    I do not condem anything just because it comes from a 'feminist
    newager' and I do not adopt everything that comes from another
    source. 
    
    I check what is said or written against my understanding of Scripture
    and against Church teachings and doctrines. 
    
    Unfortunatly, I find greater agreement between these checks and our
    'former Hungarian monk' than I do with those who have a set of 
    opinions which find common elements under the category of 'feminist
    new ager'. 
    
    The concepts come first and who offers them is a distant second. If
    I appear to be always 'against' the liberal feminist position it is
    because I consistantly find it in error when evaluated against the
    truth of Scripture and Church teachings.
    
    I realized that your criteria of evaluation may be different and I
    accept your freedom to choose to believe as you do; I also realize
    that with the same freedom, I choose to believe these authorities.
    
    It would be good if we could go beyond this part of the discussion
    and get onto the meat of the discourse. In .20 this was concerned
    with the interpertations of the passages from Genesis and how this
    brought forth a fundamental truth of God as the Creator/Begettor
    and man as the Created/Conceiver. 
    
    The primary ruse of Satan in the Garden of Eden was to tempt 
    Adam and Eve to believe that God was denying them equality with Him;
    when Eve said that they were forbidden to eat the fruit of the tree
    of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the serpent implied that God was 
    trying to keep them from assuming power, equality, and immortality.
    In essence, the serpent called God a lier and slandered His intentions
    towards His Creation.
    
    In today's age, I think many people mistrust God just as Adam and Eve
    did in the Garden. We forget God as our Lord, due all obedience and
    reliance. We think that we are like God and that our personal rights
    are all that matters. 
    
    Mother-God connotes a receptivity to a more active and begetting
    Creator which would only further confuse the roles here. Mankind is
    already confused about its role as the created rather than creator!
    
    Also, the Church is properly our Mother through the work of the Holy
    Spirit in bringing the Gifts of the Spirit upon Her. In all ways it is
    God who gives good things and it is us, His children, who receive all
    things from God, the Creator and Giver of Life and our Salvation. 
    
    Our attitude of living, both male and female, should be that of
    openness and receptivity to God's Will for us and His gifts and we 
    should acknowledge His Lordhship over our lives.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

Sandy,

Since it seems we've come to agreement on filters/perceptions, 
I'll leave that alone.  ;')

<<How many of us truly question the motives of the messenger when we agree 
<<with the message?  I have long questioned the motives of the author of 
<<the #4 bestseller and you advocate the book highly.  In the words of 
<<Harry Chapin, "You see what you want to see and you hear what you want 
<<to hear.  BTW, I include myself in that statement.

I for one do question both the messenger's movtives and my own.  It 
is something I work really hard at.  I read Marianne's first book when 
it first came out, as a student for many years of ACIM, the book rang 
true for me.  I then saw the author on various television programs, 
read the magazine and newspaper articles that were written about her.  
Quite a bit of bad press, so I read a biography written about the
author.  I came to the opinion that this was a person who was truly
trying to live by the Course principles of extending Love and seeing
the Oneness.  I then read her new book when it came out and attended
her lecture.  For me, seeing someone in person gives me a better
feeling of where they're coming from.  I've attended lectures of other
authors whose work impacted me (Scott Peck, Harriet Lehner, Matthew
Fox for instance).  After meeting these people in person and sometimes
having the opportunity to speak with them personally or have them
reply to audience questions, some I liked, some I didn't, some I
wasn't clear of their motives.  In the case of Marianne, her presence
was loving and human.  Her experiences were ones I could empathize
with; she touched my soul.  A truly remarkable honest woman who to me
is trying to, by her example, Teach Only Love.

Sandy, you mention that you've long questioned the motives of Marianne 
Williamson.  Can I ask if you formed your opinions from reading her 
books, or reading what the press says about her, or from some other 
source?  I often wonder if Jesus were to come back today, if he too 
would get the bad press and people would question his motives....even 
those who most profess to follow him.  Just pondering...   

Ro

>Sandy, you mention that you've long questioned the motives of Marianne 
>Williamson.  Can I ask if you formed your opinions from reading her 
>books, or reading what the press says about her, or from some other 
>source?  I often wonder if Jesus were to come back today, if he too 
>would get the bad press and people would question his motives....even 
>those who most profess to follow him.  Just pondering...   

>Ro

Good question, Ro.  To be honest with you and with myself, the answer 
would be all three.  I read "A Course in Miracles" before I became a 
Christian and discounted it because of religious overtones.  I read it 
again several months ago and once again discounted it.  It wasn't 
religious enough. :^)  I've not read her latest and don't plan to due to 
bad press and what others have said.  I realize that sounds rather 
bigoted, but I simply don't agree with most of what she says.

I'm in agreement with what you say about Jesus.  I just don't put 
Marianne Williamson in the same catagory. :^)

Sandy

Sandy,

Thanks for your honest reply.

<<would be all three.  I read "A Course in Miracles" before I became a 

Sandy, do you mean you read the entire "A Course in Miracles" twice?
Or did you mean you read Marianne's first book "A Return to Love"?
The reason I ask is that it always surprises me when people say they 
read it.  It is not an easy read.  To really understand the text takes 
a great deal of concentration and the workbook lessons are meant to be 
read one lesson a day for a year.  I've sat with my in-laws for hours 
just discussing a paragraph or two and they've been studying the 
Course for over a dozen years.  BTW, my father-in-law is a retired UCC 
ordained minister who has spent his life serving God.

<<Christian and discounted it because of religious overtones.  I read it 
<<again several months ago and once again discounted it.  It wasn't 
<<religious enough. :^)  

As you probably know, ACIM was 'given' (in Mary Nelson's terminology) to
an atheist woman psychiatrist of Jewish descent (who was very reluctant 
about being choosen to receive this information) from Jesus.  I have 
no intention of arguing this point with anyone.  People can take it 
or leave it, it is not the path for everyone.  For me personally, it 
has helped to enable me to clear my ego out of the way and allow the 
Holy Spirit to work through me.  The Holy Spirit never fails me, 
although I admit and I'm sure Marianne Williamson would say the same, 
that in my human way I don't turn to it in every moment/instance (my 
earlier reply to Mary for example) as I should.  But I'm working on
it!  ;')  It is a wonderful gift to be able to see each person as a
Child of God and that is what ACIM has given me. 

Thanks for sharing your experience!

And to get this note back on topic, ACIM uses Father, Son, etc as 
Richard has pointed out before the language appears exclusive.  As a 
feminist this would normally push a button for me but for some reason 
(perhaps God's unconditional Love), I don't feel excluded as I read it.  

Love to you,

Ro

I'm not ignoring you, Ro, I let work interfere with my noting yesterday. 
:^)   I'll try not to let it happen again.

Yes, the book I was referring to was "A Return To Love".  I was trying 
to talk to a customer and keep a cogent thought at the same time and was 
obviously unsuccessful.  GOs knows what I told the customer. %*}

Our beliefs (yours and mine) appear to be headed in opposite directions, 
but I think we can occasionally meet somewhere in the middle.  I, like 
Jim Henderson, prefer the Bible to other bestsellers.  This doesn't mean 
I keep my head in the sand.  Before becoming a Christian, I would read 2 
to 3 bestsellers a week (I'm a voracious reader), but other than 
temporary entertainment, I got nothing out of it.  I realize that you've 
received much from Marianne Williamson's books and that's okay.  I 
simply find all of my spiritual need met by the Bible.


Love to you, too.  :^)


Sandy