According to some in Church, God is evolving

[Robert.Evans]

The female Bishop (an evolution in itself) says that God should not be seen as male (as per scripture) but as God, neither male nor female, even though it plainly states he is the Father. So is it evolving backwards or forwards?

Also, has the Church the power to do this? Do they now sit in the seat of Jesus as they did in the seat of Moses?

Or is all this a mix up of what God really is? comments?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3288473/Don-t-God-man-says-woman-bishop-sit-House-Lords.html

 

[Father Heathen]

Attempting to anthropomorphize an omnimax force, such assigning sex/gender, is primitive man's way of making god in his image rather than the other way around.
You reference scripture, but why would god be bound by or limited to what some long dead goat herders wrote? Can man control god just by writing silly things in a book? Of course not.

 

[Shad]

The female Bishop (an evolution in itself) says that God should not be seen as male (as per scripture) but as God, neither male nor female, even though it plainly states he is the Father. So is it evolving backwards or forwards?

Also, has the Church the power to do this? Do they now sit in the seat of Jesus as they did in the seat of Moses?

Or is all this a mix up of what God really is? comments?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3288473/Don-t-God-man-says-woman-bishop-sit-House-Lords.html

She is arguing about interpretation which could give rise to implications that are not intended namely biological and physical factors used to identify males. IE If God is male then God has a biology thus is physical, house of cards collapses.

 

[Robert.Evans]

She is arguing about interpretation which could give rise to implications that are not intended namely biological and physical factors used to identify males. IE If God is male then God has a biology thus is physical, house of cards collapses.

Trouble is, the Text plainly shows he is masculine: the Father 1Cor 6.8

I think it is the modern way of the female trying to change history. It also appears to me, having given it further consideration (about two seconds ago) that this is the start of a new religion and that the English Church will soon be female and not male. It might take a few generations, but if they are allowed to ignore scripture, then it must be new.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Attempting to anthropomorphize an omnimax force, such assigning sex/gender, is primitive man's way of making god in his image rather than the other way around.
You reference scripture, but why would god be bound by or limited to what some long dead goat herders wrote? Can man control god just by writing silly things in a book? Of course not.

What does it have to do with whether the early believers herded goats or not? Is it better now we have a woman whose job is in the Church? How? Her understanding will primarily come from those same scriptures.

And if we are created in the Image, there must be some causal link. It does not have to be identical however.

 

[Shad]

Trouble is, the Text plainly shows he is masculine: the Father 1Cor 6.8

Then you have merely continued exactly the issue addressed in the article which is gender identification based on modern biological definitions along with the problems it will cause. If God is in any way associated by human characteristic you have anthropomorphized your deity. If not taken in a strict interpretation but merely a trick of poetry then there is no issue.

I think it is the modern way of the female trying to change history. It also appears to me, having given it further consideration (about two seconds ago) that this is the start of a new religion and that the English Church will soon be female and not male. It might take a few generations, but if they are allowed to ignore scripture, then it must be new.

Nope, it is putting forward a less than literal interpretation in order to resolve issues so that people do not take a supposed gender association of God with superiority of their own sex. It is attempting to fill the gap in which the language is used is taken as a fact rather than the theological views behind the language.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Then you have merely continued exactly the issue addressed in the article which is gender identification based on modern biological definitions along with the problem it will cause. If God is in any way associated by human characteristic you have anthropomorphized your deity. If not taken in a strict interpretation but merely a trick of poetry then there is no issue.



Nope, it is putting forward a less than literal interpretation in order to resolve issues so that people do not take a supposed gender association of God with superiority of their own sex. It is attempting to fill the gap in which the language is used is taken as a fact rather than the theological views behind the language.

Okay. Wise words I've no doubt; but it still says that God is the Father. I don't know what we do with that now. Ignore it I suppose. Do we then ignore salvation also? Perhaps they didn't know what they were talking about then either.

 

[Lyndon]

If your only source of information about God is the Bible, you have a very biased and unreliable source IMHO.

 

[Shad]

Okay. Wise words I've no doubt; but it still says that God is the Father.

Which is not her point but that use of these word so not be used literally to infer something beyond the meaning intended. The word father carries certain parameters if used literal rather than metaphorically. People called clergy "Father" but most are not fathers of children nor of these speaking to them in the biological sense. So pointing out God is not literally a biological father but rather invoke the authority of the word. She is proposing a solution which I assume the CoE can not solve with a better theological program for the young.

I don't know what we do with that now. Ignore it I suppose. Do we then ignore salvation also? Perhaps they didn't know what they were talking about then either.

Never said ignore it. Rather I said people should not use certain words in the literal sense. As I said if God is a male then God has a biology and is physical due to the definition of the word thus not a God since these are restriction. If male is a metaphorical sense there is no issue as the biological definition is not used at all. John 36-22. God is unlimited. To have a gender is a limit. Thus gender association outside of a metaphorical view is untenable.

 

[Unification]

The female Bishop (an evolution in itself) says that God should not be seen as male (as per scripture) but as God, neither male nor female, even though it plainly states he is the Father. So is it evolving backwards or forwards?

Also, has the Church the power to do this? Do they now sit in the seat of Jesus as they did in the seat of Moses?

Or is all this a mix up of what God really is? comments?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3288473/Don-t-God-man-says-woman-bishop-sit-House-Lords.html

The texts don't refer to literal guy or girl. Or literal father or mother. Or literal gender.

Polarity,
Male: positive.
Female: negative.

Man:conscious mind.
Woman:subconscious mind.

Son: a thought.
Daughter: an emotion.
Child: a seed of knowledge/intellect.

Ones father and mother are the two conscious spheres of the brain, west and east. They give birth to sons(thoughts), daughters(emotions), and mind children(knowledge/intellect).

Earth in text refers to the physical brain made of matter, with two spheres. Just as the sun in text is the East sphere and the moon is the west sphere. It's all about the brain and the mind that the brain creates.

The father impregnates the mother.
Pending on the father and mother's nature, ones conscious activity is either honorable or distasteful.

Father comes from pater/patr. PATRiarchs, there are 3... The neocortex, limbic, and reptilian.

Mother is mater, there is the pia mater/duramater/arachnoid mater.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The female Bishop (an evolution in itself) says that God should not be seen as male (as per scripture) but as God, neither male nor female, even though it plainly states he is the Father. So is it evolving backwards or forwards?

Also, has the Church the power to do this? Do they now sit in the seat of Jesus as they did in the seat of Moses?

Or is all this a mix up of what God really is? comments?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3288473/Don-t-God-man-says-woman-bishop-sit-House-Lords.html

I looked up the Church of England and it says its Anglican protestant. Roman and Othorodox Catholics, if refering to the Church, say God is a male and is the Father. Also, RC never has a female Bishop because they believe that the Pope is the sucesser of Peter and Peter of Jesus. So, in that sense the Pope can speak for Jesus.

I dont know where in the scriptures that God could be seen as anything but a male. It could Also be that males had the authority and all authorities are males and is over females. There isnt a male and female equality in the Church.

I dont know about Anglican. Episcoplian has female Bishops. I dont know if Id formally consider them the Church to say they are right from an Church point of view.

In my Opinion, women should be Bishops and Popes too (which means God had no gender but what humans define Him.) Thars just me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Okay. Wise words I've no doubt; but it still says that God is the Father. I don't know what we do with that now. Ignore it I suppose. Do we then ignore salvation also? Perhaps they didn't know what they were talking about then either.

If God was female (since male and female are Both genders) how would that change the role of salvation?

Does Gods gender need to be male for you to be saved?

 

[Iti oj]

@Robert.Evans what is gained or lost by changing the understanding of Gods gender. you keep pointing out the bible says, but not its significance.

 

[Father Heathen]

If your only source of information about God is the Bible, you have a very biased and unreliable source IMHO.

It's almost as if they deify the bible itself; idoltry.

 

[Father Heathen]

What does it have to do with whether the early believers herded goats or not?

The point is that they, like every other culture of the world, were ignorant and primitive savages, and like every other religion of the world, their perception and portrayal of god arose from their own imaginations and social norms. Essentially, it's like calling "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" a documentary.

Is it better now we have a woman whose job is in the Church? How?Her will primarily come from those same scriptures.

Women would be neither better nor worse, and that's the whole point; it shouldn't matter. Isn't it supposed to be the clergy's sermon and not their genitalia that's important?

And if we are created in the Image, there must be some causal link. It does not have to be identical however.

If the eggs are green then so too must be the ham.

 

[George-ananda]

comments?

Of course, God doesn't evolve but mankind's understanding evolves. This is a positive thing. Our concepts must accord with good reason in this age of increased education and information. Obviously God is beyond any male/female distinction and our thinking should evolve to that understanding.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I looked up the Church of England and it says its Anglican protestant. Roman and Othorodox Catholics, if refering to the Church, say God is a male and is the Father. Also, RC never has a female Bishop because they believe that the Pope is the sucesser of Peter and Peter of Jesus. So, in that sense the Pope can speak for Jesus.

I dont know where in the scriptures that God could be seen as anything but a male. It could Also be that males had the authority and all authorities are males and is over females. There isnt a male and female equality in the Church.

I dont know about Anglican. Episcoplian has female Bishops. I dont know if Id formally consider them the Church to say they are right from an Church point of view.

In my Opinion, women should be Bishops and Popes too (which means God had no gender but what humans define Him.) Thars just me.

Episcoplians are members of the Anglican communion as is the Church of England.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first among equals in the Anglican communion. And acts as leader and chairman.

Women priests already make up nearly 50% of Church of England clergy. The largest group of Anglicans is to be found in Africa, they are mostly against ordaining women priests. Anglican theology accepts the concept of Female ordination at all levels including that of bishops.

 

[Nietzsche]

Trouble is, the Text plainly shows he is masculine: the Father 1Cor 6.8

I think it is the modern way of the female trying to change history. It also appears to me, having given it further consideration (about two seconds ago) that this is the start of a new religion and that the English Church will soon be female and not male. It might take a few generations, but if they are allowed to ignore scripture, then it must be new.

Christian scripture makes an effort to denote God as specifically a masculine entity. However, in your predecessor faith(Judaism), there's much more ambiguity, and the masculine term is generally only used for simplicity's sake. Does it make sense for such an entity to have an identifiable gender? What purpose would it serve? It only opens up problems, really. If God were definitively, unquestionably masculine...what're women? Are they not made in the "image of God"?

 

[Nietzsche]

Women would be neither better nor worse, and that's the whole point; it shouldn't matter. Isn't it supposed to be the clergy's sermon and not their genitalia that's important?

Well I can think of a few things done by various clergy members that might require a bit of improvisation if said clergy member is, well, lacking a member..


Nietzsche ducks.

 

[Princeps Eugenius]

The female Bishop (an evolution in itself) says that God should not be seen as male (as per scripture) but as God, neither male nor female, even though it plainly states he is the Father. So is it evolving backwards or forwards?

Also, has the Church the power to do this? Do they now sit in the seat of Jesus as they did in the seat of Moses?

Or is all this a mix up of what God really is? comments?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3288473/Don-t-God-man-says-woman-bishop-sit-House-Lords.html

Jesus was male (not transgender) so the christian god is male...