God as Father?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Thanks blackbelt,

I value diverse perspectives working together to establish common ground on which to establish action oriented to hope.

Once I tried to image how I would paint a picture of the trinity. I did not paint the picture but the concept I came up with continues to intrigue me. A father and a son are working in the field harvesting wheat. They are watched through a kitchen window by a mother while she is baking bread. This image admits a feminine characterization of the Holy Spirit.

The place of woman is sometimes obscure in the bible. Quite often her presence is signified by negative connotations. We may think of Adam blaming Eve for his surrender to temptation in the garden. This Hebrew mindset is accented by early biblical scholars such as Augustine. He saw woman simply as the place where a man could sow seed to reap a harvest of sons.

I notice that whenever God decides to start something new in the earth a woman is the place of beginning. Sarah's conception of a son. Hannah's conception of a son. Mary's conception of a son. Just when it seems that history is a failed project a woman hears the word of God and a future is made possible. I notice that God is realized in the unity of male and female.

Taking this a step further, I notice that our human brains function in a binary relationship. The rational and the intuitive in harmony make manifest a healthy human being. Where the trajectory shifts from that conjoined relationship to prefer the rational over the intuitive, or vice versa, distortion comes into play. I suspect this is connected to the concept of the fall.

This is key for me:
Yahweh, I Will Be What I Will Be

Speaking to the question asked by Moses God pronounces a simple existential phrase. It is interpreted in various ways. Above I noted the name "I am who I am". You notice "I will be what I will be." I have also heard the Hebrew translated as "I am what I am becoming". The latter two interpretations express dynamic presence. The first interpretation seems to be somewhat static. For me a dynamic God is preferred over a static God.

I find it interesting that the most truthful expression of my own being in the world is also "I am who I am becoming." This becoming is not a process by which I obtain something that is not available to me now. It is a process of eliminating all that I have acquired by my experience in the world to make present only who it is that God has created me to be. This is how I understand sanctification. A refining of my being to exclude all that is contrary to the way of God and liberating the image of God in me.

We begin in the name of God, "I am who I am becoming". We are separated from the name of God by our immersion in the experience of a distinctive racial, cultural, linguistic circumstances into which we have been born. That secondary identity eclipses the primary identity. We forget who we are in God and are diverted by who we appear to be in the world. Turning away from the way of our inherited being in the world is to turn towards our origin in God. This seems to be the substance of our baptism. Death to who I thought I was and resurrection to whom I actually am; the image of God in history. From old Adam to new Adam by a step of faith.

Will leave it there for a bit and see what comes next.

George







 
When the bible tells us that we are created in His image, is He talking about our physical image? My understanding is that God is neither male or female and this has nothing to do with physical characteristics. So why do we insist that God should look or behave like us?
 
When the bible tells us that we are created in His image, is He talking about our physical image? My understanding is that God is neither male or female.

If I may bring my understanding of "God" in for a moment, taking the pantheist notion of "All is God", then we are in the image of God in the sense that we are made of the same matter and energy that make up all things. On the surface, we look different, but get down to the level of atoms and lower, and it's all the same stuff. Our human image is just a particular arrangement of that matter and energy, which is the image of "God".
 
If I may bring my understanding of "God" in for a moment, taking the pantheist notion of "All is God", then we are in the image of God in the sense that we are made of the same matter and energy that make up all things. On the surface, we look different, but get down to the level of atoms and lower, and it's all the same stuff. Our human image is just a particular arrangement of that matter and energy, which is the image of "God".
You may have missed my edit, but it still leaves us with the image created throughout the ages of a male image that portrays dominance. Thus we are left with a male image that regards males as superior which is utterly false and another false image that suggests women are superior in roles that are declared to be suited for females only. In effect there has been a glass ceiling created within many churches for females.
 
You may have missed my edit, but it still leaves us with the image created throughout the ages of a male image that portrays dominance. Thus we are left with a male image that regards males as superior which is utterly false and another false image that suggests women are superior in roles that are declared to be suited for females only. In effect there has been a glass ceiling created within many churches for females.

Yes, I did. As you can see from my quote of your post, I was responding to the first part of your post before you posted the second part and suggesting another way we could all be "in the image of God" without that image being gendered.

So why do we insist that God should look or behave like us?

I don't. As you can see from the response of mine that you quoted, I think the notion of us being "in the image of God" goes deeper than our actual physical image as humans. It is more about how we are made of "star stuff" and reflect the fundamental matter and energy of existence.
 
You may have missed my edit, but it still leaves us with the image created throughout the ages of a male image that portrays dominance. Thus we are left with a male image that regards males as superior which is utterly false and another false image that suggests women are superior in roles that are declared to be suited for females only. In effect there has been a glass ceiling created within many churches for females.

The giving of different roles to males and females in churches is not, at least in my experience, based on the notion that males are superior (greater than, better than) females. May I ask, waterfall, which churches you know of that teach that males are superior?
 
The giving of different roles to males and females in churches is not, at least in my experience, based on the notion that males are superior (greater than, better than) females. May I ask, waterfall, which churches you know of that teach that males are superior?
Roman Catholic, Anglican, Baptist,......need I go on. I believe you were a part of a church that doesn't allow women ministers, deacons, etc....is that correct?
 

Huh? The Anglicans not only ordain women, they've had women as bishops. Their sibling churches in other parts of the world are often behind the curve, but Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopals, save for hardcore resisters, are quite liberal in their approach to women and are even becoming quite LGBT friendly.
 
Roman Catholic, Anglican, Baptist,......need I go on. I believe you were a part of a church that doesn't allow women ministers, deacons, etc....is that correct?

More accurately, I was a member of a Baptist church that doesn't allow women pastors and elders. For a time it also didn't allow women deacons, however that was changed - at the time I left, the first woman deacon had just recently been elected. However, that church's not having women pastors and elders (and for a time deacons) was not based on the notion that men are superior, greater than, better than, women. Rather, it was based on the concept that men are different than women.
 
Thanks blackbelt,

I value diverse perspectives working together to establish common ground on which to establish action oriented to hope.

Once I tried to image how I would paint a picture of the trinity. I did not paint the picture but the concept I came up with continues to intrigue me. A father and a son are working in the field harvesting wheat. They are watched through a kitchen window by a mother while she is baking bread. This image admits a feminine characterization of the Holy Spirit.

The place of woman is sometimes obscure in the bible. Quite often her presence is signified by negative connotations. We may think of Adam blaming Eve for his surrender to temptation in the garden. This Hebrew mindset is accented by early biblical scholars such as Augustine. He saw woman simply as the place where a man could sow seed to reap a harvest of sons.

I notice that whenever God decides to start something new in the earth a woman is the place of beginning. Sarah's conception of a son. Hannah's conception of a son. Mary's conception of a son. Just when it seems that history is a failed project a woman hears the word of God and a future is made possible. I notice that God is realized in the unity of male and female.

Taking this a step further, I notice that our human brains function in a binary relationship. The rational and the intuitive in harmony make manifest a healthy human being. Where the trajectory shifts from that conjoined relationship to prefer the rational over the intuitive, or vice versa, distortion comes into play. I suspect this is connected to the concept of the fall.

This is key for me:


Speaking to the question asked by Moses God pronounces a simple existential phrase. It is interpreted in various ways. Above I noted the name "I am who I am". You notice "I will be what I will be." I have also heard the Hebrew translated as "I am what I am becoming". The latter two interpretations express dynamic presence. The first interpretation seems to be somewhat static. For me a dynamic God is preferred over a static God.

I find it interesting that the most truthful expression of my own being in the world is also "I am who I am becoming." This becoming is not a process by which I obtain something that is not available to me now. It is a process of eliminating all that I have acquired by my experience in the world to make present only who it is that God has created me to be. This is how I understand sanctification. A refining of my being to exclude all that is contrary to the way of God and liberating the image of God in me.

We begin in the name of God, "I am who I am becoming". We are separated from the name of God by our immersion in the experience of a distinctive racial, cultural, linguistic circumstances into which we have been born. That secondary identity eclipses the primary identity. We forget who we are in God and are diverted by who we appear to be in the world. Turning away from the way of our inherited being in the world is to turn towards our origin in God. This seems to be the substance of our baptism. Death to who I thought I was and resurrection to whom I actually am; the image of God in history. From old Adam to new Adam by a step of faith.

Will leave it there for a bit and see what comes next.

George



Thanks George,

I believe there is so much to lean by Gods Name, that His name reveals so much to us that by simply using His Title "God" , we have lost so much of what His Name alone teach's us , for example ,

"I Am" , God is aware of His being and ability to move His Person-hood as He wills, even though He is Spirit with no physics body , God knows that He Is , I + Will = Being . God is Aware that He is not stagnate, he Wills !

Where I is the eternal, immutable Self (God or Spirit) & WILL is the capabilities of the Self

His Name also reflects so much of our likeness to Him , i am , as i apply my will to it, the Immutable Self , I become and am a person or being, which is the highest truth of my self, so to worship God to experience God we must worship in Truth of who we truly are with in, good and bad for the bead is dealt with on the cross ..

any how George, I think there is so so much in Gods True Name that the church has lost it by
using His Tittle instead :)
 
Huh? The Anglicans not only ordain women, they've had women as bishops. Their sibling churches in other parts of the world are often behind the curve, but Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopals, save for hardcore resisters, are quite liberal in their approach to women and are even becoming quite LGBT friendly.

Many Baptist churches around the world also ordain women.
 
Huh? The Anglicans not only ordain women, they've had women as bishops. Their sibling churches in other parts of the world are often behind the curve, but Canadian Anglicans and American Episcopals, save for hardcore resisters, are quite liberal in their approach to women and are even becoming quite LGBT friendly.
This was not always the case. I remember my dad (Anglican Priest) and his brother, my uncle Bill, (United church minister) arguing this point when I was young. Same argument for the LGBT community. Uncle Bill always preaching for it, my Dad preaching against it.
 
More accurately, I was a member of a Baptist church that doesn't allow women pastors and elders. For a time it also didn't allow women deacons, however that was changed - at the time I left, the first woman deacon had just recently been elected. However, that church's not having women pastors and elders (and for a time deacons) was not based on the notion that men are superior, greater than, better than, women. Rather, it was based on the concept that men are different than women.

A bit like the separate but equal suggestion we have with respect to racial segregation.

Different very quickly becomes a rationale for discrimination.
 
Thanks George,

I believe there is so much to lean by Gods Name, that His name reveals so much to us that by simply using His Title "God" , we have lost so much of what His Name alone teach's us , for example ,

"I Am" , God is aware of His being and ability to move His Person-hood as He wills, even though He is Spirit with no physics body , God knows that He Is , I + Will = Being . God is Aware that He is not stagnate, he Wills !

Where I is the eternal, immutable Self (God or Spirit) & WILL is the capabilities of the Self

His Name also reflects so much of our likeness to Him , i am , as i apply my will to it, the Immutable Self , I become and am a person or being, which is the highest truth of my self, so to worship God to experience God we must worship in Truth of who we truly are with in, good and bad for the bead is dealt with on the cross ..

any how George, I think there is so so much in Gods True Name that the church has lost it by
using His Tittle instead :)
So why the insistence on the preference of using Father in the Bible in order to have relationship with God?
 
This was not always the case. I remember my dad (Anglican Priest) and his brother, my uncle Bill, (United church minister) arguing this point when I was young. Same argument for the LGBT community. Uncle Bill always preaching for it, my Dad preaching against it.
Although the Anglicans ordain women now, the refusal of the Anglican Church to ordain women was a part of the reason that union talks between the Anglicans and the United Church broke down in the early-mid 1970's. Another reason was the United Church's unwillingness to accept bishops.
 
Who said anything about separate DaisyJane? I believe all of God's children should work together in ministry.

My goodness. Are you really that obtuse? Or just trying to complicate the conversation to obscure your irrational point.

My point is that the "different but equal" argument has been used before to justify discrimination (for example racially segregated schools) with clear, discriminatory results. Some churches continue to do so.
 
Although the Anglicans ordain women now, the refusal of the Anglican Church to ordain women was a part of the reason that union talks between the Anglicans and the United Church broke down in the early-mid 1970's. Another reason was the United Church's unwillingness to accept bishops.
I also found it interesting that my Dad was the eldest and more set in his ways, Uncle Bill being the youngest seemed to be more open to change and accepting people as they are. I think he was even a pioneer with that attitude within the United church back in the 60's and 70's.
 
My goodness. Are you really that obtuse? Or just trying to complicate the conversation to obscure your irrational point.

My point is that the "different but equal" argument has been used before to justify discrimination (for example racially segregated schools) with clear, discriminatory results. Some churches continue to do so.
:D
 
Back
Top