God About To Undergo Gender Reassignment Surgery

[Skwim]

.​

A few excerpted comments.

The Episcopal Church has decided to revise its 1979 prayer book, so that God is no longer referred to by masculine pronouns.

The prayer book, first published in 1549 and now in its fourth edition, is the symbol of unity for the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian communion founded in 1867. While there is no clear timeline for the changes, religious leaders at the denomination’s recent triennial conference in Austin have agreed to a demand to replace the masculine terms for God such as “He” and “King” and “Father.”

Indeed, early Christian writings and texts, all refer to God in feminine terms.

In fact, the personal name of God, Yahweh, which is revealed to Moses in Exodus 3, is a remarkable combination of both female and male grammatical endings. The first part of God’s name in Hebrew, “Yah,” is feminine, and the last part, “weh,” is masculine. In light of Exodus 3, the feminist theologian Mary Daly asks, “Why must ‘God’ be a noun? Why not a verb – the most active and dynamic of all.”

In the New Testament, Jesus also presents himself in feminine language. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus stands over Jerusalem and weeps, saying, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

Furthermore, the author of Matthew equates Jesus with the feminine Sophia (wisdom), when he writes, “Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” In Matthew’s mind, it seems that Jesus is the feminine Wisdom of Proverbs, who was with God from the beginning of creation. In my opinion, I think it is very likely that Matthew is suggesting that there is a spark of the feminine in Jesus’ nature.

Additionally, in his letter to the Galatians, written around 54 or 55 A.D., Paul says that he will continue “in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.”

Clearly, feminine imagery was acceptable among the first followers of Jesus.
source


​

Thoughts and comments:

.

 

[sun rise]

This is interesting to me. I'm reminded of the Hindu use of a female/male mantra as "Sita Ram" and "Radha Krishna". Also figures such as Ramakrishna worshiped the Divine Mother. And there are truly powerful female figures such as Kali.

So to me this story is about some Christians starting to recover the sense of the Divine Feminine.

 

[Ellen Brown]

.​

A few excerpted comments.

The Episcopal Church has decided to revise its 1979 prayer book, so that God is no longer referred to by masculine pronouns.

The prayer book, first published in 1549 and now in its fourth edition, is the symbol of unity for the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian communion founded in 1867. While there is no clear timeline for the changes, religious leaders at the denomination’s recent triennial conference in Austin have agreed to a demand to replace the masculine terms for God such as “He” and “King” and “Father.”

Indeed, early Christian writings and texts, all refer to God in feminine terms.

In fact, the personal name of God, Yahweh, which is revealed to Moses in Exodus 3, is a remarkable combination of both female and male grammatical endings. The first part of God’s name in Hebrew, “Yah,” is feminine, and the last part, “weh,” is masculine. In light of Exodus 3, the feminist theologian Mary Daly asks, “Why must ‘God’ be a noun? Why not a verb – the most active and dynamic of all.”

In the New Testament, Jesus also presents himself in feminine language. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus stands over Jerusalem and weeps, saying, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

Furthermore, the author of Matthew equates Jesus with the feminine Sophia (wisdom), when he writes, “Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” In Matthew’s mind, it seems that Jesus is the feminine Wisdom of Proverbs, who was with God from the beginning of creation. In my opinion, I think it is very likely that Matthew is suggesting that there is a spark of the feminine in Jesus’ nature.

Additionally, in his letter to the Galatians, written around 54 or 55 A.D., Paul says that he will continue “in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.”

Clearly, feminine imagery was acceptable among the first followers of Jesus.
source


​

Thoughts and comments:

.

Not that I know a lot about this. I am told that in the expressions of the pre-Jews, Asherah was the name of God's wife. That should set some folk to screaming bloody murder.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'd say an excess concern for the gendered language used to refer to God is theologically bankrupt. Reference to God made along line of gendered language doesn't reflect upon any definite essential characteristic of God, but rather are useful in pointing towards certain relational bonds between God and man.

So to me this story is about some Christians starting to recover the sense of the Divine Feminine.

I would argue that there is no such thing as the Divine Feminine, just as there is no such thing as the Divine Masculine. Masculinity and femininity are temporal worldly things. The divine is the divine, it is so much more than that by which we describe male and female characteristics.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Um perhaps God is not gendered? Then why did he create two genders? Are you saying that Eve was supposed to be Adam's wet nurse and baby sitter, just like we are doing now? Does that mean women were just created to boot around? Did Adam really need to keep blaming Eve for the Apple incident all that time? (6,000 years) More you say? Maybe God is just giving Adam time to finally "man up" and take the responsibility for takin a bite too? Does God ordaine your his right to get it and leave his partner on slow cook the rest of the night? HMPH !

 

[Skwim]

I'd say an excess concern for the gendered language used to refer to God is theologically bankrupt.

By definition, excessive anything is unreasonable, but an excessive concern for the gendered language used to refer to God is "theologically bankrupt"? How does that work?

.

 

[Ellen Brown]

By definition, excessive anything is unreasonable, but an excessive concern for the gendered language used to refer to God is "theologically bankrupt"? How does that work?

.

That information is not knowable at this time. We will be told if it is necessary.

 

[Skwim]

That information is not knowable at this time.

How do you know? Because you don't know it?

Besides, Mister Emu said, "I'd say an excess concern for the gendered language used to refer to God is theologically bankrupt," and he must have some reason for saying so, or are you calling him a fibber?

.

 

[Windwalker]

Reference to God made along line of gendered language doesn't reflect upon any definite essential characteristic of God, but rather are useful in pointing towards certain relational bonds between God and man.

If it's useful to call God "He" to denote a patriarchal relationship, then can you answer why it is not useful to call God "She" to denote a matriarchal relationship? You say it's theologically useless, yet admit it is useful in this context. Why is it ok for the Divine Masculine, but not the Divine Feminine?

I would argue that there is no such thing as the Divine Feminine, just as there is no such thing as the Divine Masculine. Masculinity and femininity are temporal worldly things. The divine is the divine, it is so much more than that by which we describe male and female characteristics.

Yet, you called referring to God as "He" is "useful". Do you object to those who want to say "She" then for those same reasons?

 

[Mister Emu]

How does that work?

It has no value, it doesn't even purport to attempt to add to the knowledge of God or his relationship with us, and it's a lessening or lowering of thought, a matter a vanity as either sex attempts to lift their base nature closer to the divine.

If it's useful to call God "He" to denote a patriarchal relationship, then can you answer why it is not useful to call God "She" to denote a matriarchal relationship?

I've yet to see an instance where our relationship is better captured by matriarchal terminology. Some are worse as with "Mother" vs "Father", though some would produce only a small difference as in "King" vs "Queen".

You say it's theologically useless, yet admit it is useful in this context. Why is it ok for the Divine Masculine, but not the Divine Feminine?

I said excess concern for the gendered language is useless, and I also said that there is no such thing as "the Divine Masculine" or "the Divine Feminine". Masculinity and femininity are base, temporal, material things mostly related to genitalia and hormone levels; there is only the Divine Divinity.

Yet, you called referring to God as "He" is "useful".

Yes, I did. Because, the terms "Father", "King", "Lord", etc. are evocative in a way to better capture the unique relationship we have with God. Not because of any supposed divine masculinity or femininity.

Do you object to those who want to say "She" then for those same reasons?

I slightly object to those who want to say "She" and use feminine terms because those are evocative in such a way as to be more likely to produce confused or misguided theology.

You are of course, free to disagree with my theological outlook.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

.​

A few excerpted comments.

The Episcopal Church has decided to revise its 1979 prayer book, so that God is no longer referred to by masculine pronouns.

The prayer book, first published in 1549 and now in its fourth edition, is the symbol of unity for the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion is the third largest Christian communion founded in 1867. While there is no clear timeline for the changes, religious leaders at the denomination’s recent triennial conference in Austin have agreed to a demand to replace the masculine terms for God such as “He” and “King” and “Father.”

Indeed, early Christian writings and texts, all refer to God in feminine terms.

In fact, the personal name of God, Yahweh, which is revealed to Moses in Exodus 3, is a remarkable combination of both female and male grammatical endings. The first part of God’s name in Hebrew, “Yah,” is feminine, and the last part, “weh,” is masculine. In light of Exodus 3, the feminist theologian Mary Daly asks, “Why must ‘God’ be a noun? Why not a verb – the most active and dynamic of all.”

In the New Testament, Jesus also presents himself in feminine language. In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus stands over Jerusalem and weeps, saying, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.”

Furthermore, the author of Matthew equates Jesus with the feminine Sophia (wisdom), when he writes, “Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” In Matthew’s mind, it seems that Jesus is the feminine Wisdom of Proverbs, who was with God from the beginning of creation. In my opinion, I think it is very likely that Matthew is suggesting that there is a spark of the feminine in Jesus’ nature.

Additionally, in his letter to the Galatians, written around 54 or 55 A.D., Paul says that he will continue “in the pain of childbirth until Christ is formed in you.”

Clearly, feminine imagery was acceptable among the first followers of Jesus.
source


​

Thoughts and comments:

.

Thoughts? I think the thread title is needlessly inflammatory.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It has no value, it doesn't even purport to attempt to add to the knowledge of God or his relationship with us, and it's a lessening or lowering of thought, a matter a vanity as either sex attempts to lift their base nature closer to the divine.


I've yet to see an instance where our relationship is better captured by matriarchal terminology. Some are worse as with "Mother" vs "Father", though some would produce only a small difference as in "King" vs "Queen".


I said excess concern for the gendered language is useless, and I also said that there is no such thing as "the Divine Masculine" or "the Divine Feminine". Masculinity and femininity are base, temporal, material things mostly related to genitalia and hormone levels; there is only the Divine Divinity.


Yes, I did. Because, the terms "Father", "King", "Lord", etc. are evocative in a way to better capture the unique relationship we have with God. Not because of any supposed divine masculinity or femininity.


I slightly object to those who want to say "She" and use feminine terms because those are evocative in such a way as to be more likely to produce confused or misguided theology.

You are of course, free to disagree with my theological outlook.

The fact you think mother is "worse" than father speaks volumes.

 

[Mister Emu]

The fact you think mother is "worse" than father speaks volumes.

Do tell. What does the fact that I think the word "mother" is less capable of capturing the relationship we have with god than "father" say?

 

[Ellen Brown]

How do you know? Because you don't know it?

Besides, Mister Emu said, "I'd say an excess concern for the gendered language used to refer to God is theologically bankrupt," and he must have some reason for saying so, or are you calling him a fibber?

.

Wow, are you Mr. Grumpy this morning? Yes, I do not know, and I doubt that anyone does, no matter what they think.

 

[Skwim]

Thoughts? I think the thread title is needlessly inflammatory.

You were inflamed by my title? How interesting. Perhaps you should take a deep breath and not take everything so seriously. Kind of like the Bible where, as I understand it, some things are not to be taken literally, but figuratively.

.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You were inflamed by my title? How interesting. Perhaps you should take a deep breath and not take everything so seriously. Kind of like the Bible where, as I understand it, some things are not to be taken literally, but figuratively.

.

I wasn't bothered by the title. I can still recognise intent when I see it.

 

[Skwim]

Wow, are you Mr. Grumpy this morning? Yes, I do not know, and I doubt that anyone does, no matter what they think.

Okay you're back peddling a bit here. No longer are you contending that no one knows, but that it's doubtful anyone knows. This is progress. Good for you.

And no, I'm not grumpy, but if you're going to make claims here on RF you best be ready to back them up. After all, RF is a debate web site.

.

 

[Skwim]

I wasn't bothered by the title.

Then why did you bother to say, "I think the thread title is needlessly inflammatory"? Normally people don't comment on things for no reason.

.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Okay you're back peddling a bit here. No longer are you contending that no one knows, but that it's doubtful anyone knows. This is progress. Good for you.

And no, I'm not grumpy, but if you're going to make claims here on RF you best be ready to back them up. After all, RF is a debate web site.

.

All I know for sure is that I am incapable of the "act", and am fine with that. I support that others can make their own minds up.

 

[Windwalker]

I've yet to see an instance where our relationship is better captured by matriarchal terminology. Some are worse as with "Mother" vs "Father", though some would produce only a small difference as in "King" vs "Queen".

That you don't relate to it, does not mean a great many more do. I'd argue that your view of God as "King" vs "Queen" is not how most people think of God as "Our Father" or "Our Mother". It's much more intimate, like that of a child and their parent, not potentate and subject.

I said excess concern for the gendered language is useless, and I also said that there is no such thing as "the Divine Masculine" or "the Divine Feminine". Masculinity and femininity are base, temporal, material things mostly related to genitalia and hormone levels; there is only the Divine Divinity.

Well, while I am one to issue warnings about anthropomorphisms skewing how one ultimately envisions God, I think you are quite wrong about envisioning or experiencing, masculine and feminine in regards to the Divine. Firstly, I do not confuse those with gender. They do not have to do with someone's sexuality. In all of us, is both the masculine and feminine. A "man" who has no feminine qualities, is not someone you would really want a relationship with. Tender, soft, and approachable, is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of masculinity. You think instead in terms of strength and power, protection, decisiveness, action, etc. Those are culturally masculine traits.

Why I say you are probably missing the boat here on this, is that when someone thinks of God with these qualities, they represent the highest form of those qualities which we see and value in one another. They are touchstones for us, ways to relate ourselves to God and the world. To experience God as masculine is that of Infinite Power. To experience God as feminine, is Grace, Compassion, Wisdom, and so forth. These are expeirences of our earthly parents, and inform us of ourselves. These are ways for us to experience God, as both Masculine and Feminine.

Now, you may notice I used a lot of "experience" references. I think when it comes to theological questions, where it is a conceptual, mental thing, I would agree to divide God up into either/or, or any sort of duality can mess someone up. But in order to move from mere "belief" into an actual Knowledge of God, you as a human has to deal with who you are as a human, and through that find your way to knowing God. The masculine and the feminine, are a good place to start.

We don't find God through theology, but theology can be useful if not taken too "factually", it needs to be allowed to be able to bend a little to accommodate our humanness. Ultimately God is nothing we think. Theology is just wallpaper.