As usual, you're being presumptuously judgmental. My experience in starting a university program in Women and Religion raised many questions that are the hidden agenda for this thread. Bette is just the excuse to start the thread, and do so with the hope that she will stop polluting my Hymns vs. Praise Chorus threads with her sidetracking rants.
The Gender of God in the Bible, the Early Church and Today's Churches
- Thread starter Mystic
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
That purpose is multi-faceted, reflective of deep unconscious needs, and yet, the product of ancient cultural values and stereotypes of the feminine.
Yet much is unknown about this because Jungian archetypes (IMO the most brilliant breakthrough in the history of psychology) are rich in practical application, but not sufficiently understood scientifically. In any case, waterfall, I hope to share my best thinking in reply to your question as this thread develops. The Bible's feminine imagery of God is not widely recognized and therefore not widely used in modern hymnody and liturgical worship. Widespread ignorance of this imagery is the main reason why its intrusion in church life is viewed as a regression to paganism. What really matters is not a survey of this feminine imagery, but its divine purpose (Your discerning question). So stay tuned. I'm hoping to clarify my perspective on this question, and this is the main reason I started this thread.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Bette's arguments about the masculinity of God were derailing a thread that @Mystic started on an unrelated topic. Our standard advice in such a situation is to take it to a new thread, which he did. Arguably, @BetteTheRed could and should have done the same. Would that have been seen as directed at @Mystic ?
Considering that I asked the question now, it could be a good time to answer the question. If you would be so kind, I would like to hear your answer before I forget that I asked the question. Thankyou.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Mendalla said:
You're both right. I had missed that the topic was originally introduced in a "derailment" on another thread started by Mystic. I still think that Mystic seems more interested in taking on Bette than in discussing the topic, but I will apologize for not noticing that background.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
Mystic ---I apologize for going off topic ------just something I think we all need to be aware of ------How easy it is ..........
revsdd ----I am sure you mean well -----but buy stepping in to defend BetteTheRed are you not doing the very same thing that you accuse Mystic of doing targeting the person -----you have not addressed the topic only targeted Mystic for targeting BetteThe Red ------Just showing how easy it is for us to do the very thing we accuse others of ------when we don't like what another person does it is usually because it is the very thing we do ourselves -----just saying we all do it -----
What We See in Others is a Reflection of Ourselves | Self ...http://www.thepowerofoneness.com/blog/what-we-see-in-others-is-a-reflection-of-ourselves/
revsdd ----I am sure you mean well -----but buy stepping in to defend BetteTheRed are you not doing the very same thing that you accuse Mystic of doing targeting the person -----you have not addressed the topic only targeted Mystic for targeting BetteThe Red ------Just showing how easy it is for us to do the very thing we accuse others of ------when we don't like what another person does it is usually because it is the very thing we do ourselves -----just saying we all do it -----
What We See in Others is a Reflection of Ourselves | Self ...http://www.thepowerofoneness.com/blog/what-we-see-in-others-is-a-reflection-of-ourselves/
Ok, Waterfall, Ok! Geez, Louise!
The short answer consists of 3 claims that need demonstration through concrete examples:(1) One way to look at gods is the role they play as ultimate symbols of power. If the ultimate symbols of power are exclusively male, then patriarchy will be able to use them as a tool to subordinate women and harm their self-image. On the other hand, it the feminine has a sufficient role in the ultimate symbols of power, then one might expect women to have equal rights and enhanced dignity, status, and power. I will develop 2 examples to illustrate the truth of this expectation, one from the OT era and the other from the early Christian era.
(2) Even in patriarchal perceptions of the uniquely feminine, aspects of feminine stereotypes are deemed superior to the stereotypes of masculinity. For example, a woman's intuition, her power to give birth, and her womb and breasts as symbols of her nurturing gifts were widely perceived as lacking a satisfactory masculine counterpart, and this lack inspired feminine imagery of the divine in early Judeo-Christian tradition.
(3) More profound, but also more controversial, is the claim that the Jungian explanation of how the human psyche works makes feminine imagery of the divine inevitable, even, or should I say especially, in a domineering patriarchy.
Ok, Waterfall, Ok! Geez, Louise!
(1) One way to look at gods is the role they play as ultimate symbols of power. If the ultimate symbols of power are exclusively male, then patriarchy will be able to use them as a tool to subordinate women and harm their self-image. On the other hand, it the feminine has a sufficient role in the ultimate symbols of power, then one might expect women to have equal rights and enhanced dignity, status, and power. I will develop 2 examples to illustrate the truth of this expectation, one from the OT era and the other from the early Christian era.
(2) Even in patriarchal perceptions of the uniquely feminine, aspects of feminine stereotypes are deemed superior to the stereotypes of masculinity. For example, a woman's intuition, her power to give birth, and her womb and breasts as symbols of her nurturing gifts were widely perceived as lacking a satisfactory masculine counterpart, and this lack inspired feminine imagery of the divine in early Judeo-Christian tradition.
(3) More profound, but also more controversial, is the claim that the Jungian explanation of how the human psyche works makes feminine imagery of the divine inevitable, even, or should I say especially, in a domineering patriarchy.
What areas in todays church do we celebrate the feminine imagery that women can relate to today, IYO?
Well, for example, take my sermon on Mother's Day the year before last---"The Motherhood of God." Beyond that, not much. At minimum, we should stress the Binity that preceded the doctrine of the Trinity in the OT era. The binity consisted of God the Creator and Lady Wisdom (Greek; Sophia; Hebrew: Hochmah), who functions like a Second Person of the Godhead in OT Wisdom literature.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Did you miss my apology?
unsafe
Well-Known Member
revsdd ---your quote ----Did you miss my apology?
Is it really a total apology for a half apology and have a dig -------you decide -----
this is your half apology in my view ---- but I will apologize for not noticing that background.
This is your half a dig in my view no apology ----I still think that Mystic seems more interested in taking on Bette than in discussing the topic
Old wounds still there for the person ----no forgiveness ---no forgetting still harbouring -----good sight to get passed all that by practice ----is all I'm saying ----easy to talk the talk ---hard to actually walk the walk ------we are all guilty revsdd of doing this very thing ----but maturing in Christ takes work by us ---either we want to mature or we don't all up to us -------
Is it really a total apology for a half apology and have a dig -------you decide -----
this is your half apology in my view ---- but I will apologize for not noticing that background.
This is your half a dig in my view no apology ----I still think that Mystic seems more interested in taking on Bette than in discussing the topic
Old wounds still there for the person ----no forgiveness ---no forgetting still harbouring -----good sight to get passed all that by practice ----is all I'm saying ----easy to talk the talk ---hard to actually walk the walk ------we are all guilty revsdd of doing this very thing ----but maturing in Christ takes work by us ---either we want to mature or we don't all up to us -------
Seeler
Well-Known Member
Reading through this thread, I get the impression that it is an esteemed and knowledgeable professor trying to lecture to a group of not too bright freshmen (even going so far as stating what his next lecture will cover).
I thought the purpose of WC and WC2 was dialogue, discussion and the exchange of ideas.
I thought the purpose of WC and WC2 was dialogue, discussion and the exchange of ideas.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Then that is your perception. My apology was a full apology. My comment not intended as a "dig" but as a reflection on how this particular thread was evolving. In fact, having read through the other thread now for the first time, I understand the concern about derailment. That was one of the more total derailments I've ever seen, and I give credit to Mystic for trying repeatedly to get the thread back on topic. And, in any event, since my apology was to Mystic and not you, I don't think your perspective of it is especially relevant. Mystic and I have had at times a rocky relationship, but he has accepted the apology, which was sincerely offered. I'm pleased that he did, and I see no further need to reflect on it.
Last edited:
revsdd
Well-Known Member
On the subject of this thread, later today I'm going to conduct an experiment, go through both the liturgy we use in church today and my sermon and try to determine my own presumptions about God.
My self-perception is that I try to avoid gender-specific references to God, whether male or female, but I also try to portray God in personal terms (ie, God is not an "it.") It will be interesting to me to see whether my self-perception is born out. I will state that my survey will be specifically about my references to the "first" and "third" persons of the trinity, since I believe it self-evident that Jesus is male and should be referred to as such.
My self-perception is that I try to avoid gender-specific references to God, whether male or female, but I also try to portray God in personal terms (ie, God is not an "it.") It will be interesting to me to see whether my self-perception is born out. I will state that my survey will be specifically about my references to the "first" and "third" persons of the trinity, since I believe it self-evident that Jesus is male and should be referred to as such.
Seeler
Well-Known Member
God has no IT ... is that an identifiable thought as gone without Q's or clues? That's ID in the case where the intangible God encompasses wisdom too ...
A disaster to the free will-Ayres ... yeas men? One should know their Gnoes ... but those intrigued by passions are A'gonistic to that ... they just don't know!
A disaster to the free will-Ayres ... yeas men? One should know their Gnoes ... but those intrigued by passions are A'gonistic to that ... they just don't know!