Ship of Fools: The Maternal compassion of God and hell

Thread: The Maternal compassion of God and hell Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020412

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

There is a legend in Mahayana Buddhism that the Goddess of mercy, Guanyin, upon visiting the hells of the afterlife, released her loving compassion setting free, numerous souls from the torments of hell.

A similar apocryphal legend, relates to how the Blessed Virgin Mary, upon visiting the fires of hell, apparently prayed that the souls of hell might be temporarily released from their suffering.

Much of this religiosity is built upon a patriarchal understanding of male= law, female= mercy and compassion.

I'm wondering however, if our understanding of divine justice and judgment is rooted in the traditional understanding of God as primarily masculine. The Father punishes while the Mother is loving and merciful.

If for example, we conceive God as mother, would we conceive of debates about divine justice, mercy and grace differently? Would a loving mother, for example, condemn her children to a terrible hell?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I can't see that a loving Father would condemn his children to hell either. This is why the idea of hell is such a problematic one.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

What he said. It's a massive problem.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

My thoughts exactly Arethosemyfeet.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I can't see that a loving Father would condemn his children to hell either. This is why the idea of hell is such a problematic one.

Yes, if the real-world analog to hell is torturing someone for an extended period of time, that's not something I could see most fathers doing to their kids. Though, I suppose if I had to make a bet as to which gender DOES do that to their kids more often(to the extent that either does), I'd probably be a benevolent sexist and assume that it's men.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I am not sure what hell is, and I'm not sure that anyone is there. If anyone is there, it is because they continue to reject God; they want to have nothing to do with him.

God constantly offers his mercy to everyone who will accept it.

Moo

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am not sure what hell is, and I'm not sure that anyone is there. If anyone is there, it is because they continue to reject God; they want to have nothing to do with him.

God constantly offers his mercy to everyone who will accept it.

This is my belief as well.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And He does it actively.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
...God constantly offers his mercy to everyone who will accept it.

Amen.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I highly recommend Rob Bell's Love Wins in which he addresses the misconception of double predestination (some destined to heaven, others destined to hell). He points out that the Jesus story does not say anything about anyone going to hell. That was a fallacy perpetrated by Calvin. Time for conservatives to get over themselves. They will not be the only ones in heaven.

Reminds me of a joke. This man died and went to heaven. St. Peter met him at the gate. Since St. Pete did not have anything else to do, he offered to show the new man around. They went from room to room. But all of the sudden, St Peter stopped and told the man to be very quiet as they passed this room that had the door closed> Ater they got beyond the door. the man asked who was in that room. St Peter said, "Oh that is the Jerry Falwell group. They think they are the only ones here."

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am not sure what hell is, and I'm not sure that anyone is there. If anyone is there, it is because they continue to reject God; they want to have nothing to do with him.

God constantly offers his mercy to everyone who will accept it.
This is my belief as well.

I believe hell is real, and it is empty

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
...St Peter said, "Oh that is the Jerry Falwell group. They think they are the only ones here."

I kicked the slats out of my cradle over that one, but it was a different version - Roman Catholics, or Baptists or some other group. It's an infinitely variable joke.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

While I would seem to be in line with the general conception of Hell voiced here, I think that the [heresy alert?] gendered conception of God is an anthropological relic and evidence of the poverty of the human mind and language where it comes to expressing infinitude. In "his" infinitude "he" transcends gender, is neither male nor female, neither Father nor Mother. "His" mercy surpasses our understanding and has no gender content.

To be fair, I use the male pronouns, but that is just my linguistic default option toward conventional usage.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
...I think that the [heresy alert?] gendered conception of God is an anthropological relic and evidence of the poverty of the human mind and language where it comes to expressing infinitude. In "his" infinitude "he" transcends gender, is neither male nor female, neither Father nor Mother. "His" mercy surpasses our understanding and has no gender content.

To be fair, I use the male pronouns, but that is just my linguistic default option toward conventional usage.

Unfortunately, in Enlish the pronoun used for something neither male or female is 'it' which denotes something not only subhuman, but lower than most animals.

Moo

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

Would "They" work?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am not sure what hell is, and I'm not sure that anyone is there. If anyone is there, it is because they continue to reject God; they want to have nothing to do with him.

God constantly offers his mercy to everyone who will accept it.
This is my belief as well.

And mine.

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I highly recommend Rob Bell's Love Wins in which he addresses the misconception of double predestination (some destined to heaven, others destined to hell). He points out that the Jesus story does not say anything about anyone going to hell.

Unless Bell is focusing on technical use of the word "Hell," one must read the Gospels fairly selectively to say that "the Jesus story doesn’t say anything about anyone going to hell." The parable of Dives and Lazarus comes to mind, as does the separation of the sheep from the goats.

quote:
That was a fallacy perpetrated by Calvin.

Assuming you’re talking here about double predestination, more accurately it was perpetuated by some theological descendants of Calvin.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Unfortunately, in Enlish the pronoun used for something neither male or female is 'it' which denotes something not only subhuman, but lower than most animals.

I think that's a bit of an overstatement. For instance you can use "it" of an infant or very small child, in certain contexts.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Anglican_Brat: I'm wondering however, if our understanding of divine justice and judgment is rooted in the traditional understanding of God as primarily masculine. The Father punishes while the Mother is loving and merciful.

If for example, we conceive God as mother, would we conceive of debates about divine justice, mercy and grace differently? Would a loving mother, for example, condemn her children to a terrible hell?

What I get out of this discussion is that if (as I do) regard the cult of the Virgin Mary as heresy (or bad theology), then I also have to consider whether or not the cult of God as Father is similarly defective because the former is a product of the inadequacy of the latter.

If one takes seriously the notion that both male and female are expressions of the image of God then there is the implication that for the creator to be understood it is as both masculine and feminine as to gender as well as well as male and female regarding sex. The question then arises as to whether male theologians can adequately express the feminine nature of the deity. Although this gets one into the difficult question as to the relationship between sex and gender, it might be suggested empirically that male theologians have had great difficulty. Both Roman and Protestant theologians bequeathed an increasingly macho God because feminine-identified qualities were passed on to Mary or, equally problematically, excluded altogether. IMO Christianity has suffered from the paucity of female theologians, a tendency to regard those that have been as a footnote of interesting but minor significance, and more recent feminist theology as somehow outside the mainstream.

An historic example of what I’m trying to get at is Julian of Norwich, who wrote, “Our Saviour is our true Mother in whom we are endlessly born and out of whom we shall never come.” One doubts that a male theologian would have had the intuition to make such a seminal (sic) observation. Unpack that, if you will! Here is a Christ who is not only creator one to whom we are umbilically linked.

While it is true that Julian has been recognised it has generally been as a mystic, which is in some ways patronising, a synonym for eccentric. A recent writer Denys Turner (a male), however, has persuasively argued that she is not a mystic and has a right to be considered as a important theologian of the late Middle Ages because her ideas are intellectually coherent, part of an ongoing theological debate, as well as being original. I’m sure there are others who need to be similarly emancipated for our benefit.

I guess I haven’t said much about heaven and hell in relation to gender/sex so much as to say that the ‘good-cop bad-cop’ approach is clearly inadequate, as posts have suggested, and can only be answered by a theological understanding that re-integrates the nature of God as revealed in Genesis 1, that has been lost to patriarchal Christianity. It is a paradise, however, that can be regained.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

..........last sentence to third last para should read "Here is a Christ who is not only creator but also one to whom we are umbilically linked. " [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
If one takes seriously the notion that both male and female are expressions of the image of God then there is the implication that for the creator to be understood it is as both masculine and feminine as to gender as well as well as male and female regarding sex.

In Luke 13:34, Jesus describes his role as maternal.

quote:
“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.

Moo

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The parable of Dives and Lazarus comes to mind, as does the separation of the sheep from the goats.

The point of the story of Lazarus is not that there is an actual heaven or hell, rather it was about caring for the less fortunate.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The point of the story of Lazarus is not that there is an actual heaven or hell, rather it was about caring for the less fortunate.

I agree. But Jesus still talks of the rich man being in "Hades" as though such a possibility is a given, so I think it’s an example of how it’s simply not accurate to assert that Jesus didn’t say anything about anyone going to hell.

And then there's the other passage I mentioned, where Jesus says

quote:
"You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food . . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'd agree that the sheep and goats is a parable too, nowt ter do wi' what happens after death. I mean, how would Jesus have known?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Do we have trouble with God's judgement because we suspect we are more the sinner than the sinned against?

Mercy looks very different to a person who is on the receiving end of injustice.

Jengie

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'd agree that the sheep and goats is a parable too, nowt ter do wi' what happens after death. I mean, how would Jesus have known?

It doesn’t matter. The claim was that Jesus didn’t say anything about anybody going to hell. That claim is clearly inaccurate—he did, on more than one occasion, talk about people going to hell. Whether he was talking in parable, talking in metaphor, didn’t know what he was talking about or something else is a different question: What did Jesus mean when he talked about people going to hell or about eternal damnation? That's a question well worth wrestling with.

But to simply say Jesus didn’t talk about anyone ne going to hell isn't wrestling with Scripture; it’s avoiding wrestling with Scripture.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Unfortunately, in Enlish the pronoun used for something neither male or female is 'it' which denotes something not only subhuman, but lower than most animals.
I think that's a bit of an overstatement. For instance you can use "it" of an infant or very small child, in certain contexts.

Regardless, if we still want to maintain the personhood of God, and our personal relationship with "him", "it" just doesn't work as the pronoun. This is avoided in languages use the same pronoun for male and female.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Nick, it's not my claim. Jesus gave us Hell. In the strongest terms. In the most frightening terms. So my question stands. On what basis? To what end? If it was ever prophetic, plain, one step removed where figurative, NOT in sensus plenior, how did He know?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And Nick, we crossed in the post; I was responding to Gramps49 initially. Sorry, I should have said explicitly.

And Jengie. God's judgement is parable too.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

My understanding of Hell is that it is absence of relationship with the Trinity. I would see it as self imposed by individuals declining a God offering relationship.

I suspect our hubris means Hell is not empty.

I could imagine Christ entering this Hell and returning.

And masculinity/femininity speaks more to our culture than God I believe.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What doesn't Patdys? Hell, judgement, Abraham's bosom, sheep, goats, everlasting fire, devil, angels. Culture.

Posted by sonata3 (# 13653) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am not sure what hell is, and I'm not sure that anyone is there. If anyone is there, it is because they continue to reject God; they want to have nothing to do with him.

God constantly offers his mercy to everyone who will accept it.
This is my belief as well.
I believe hell is real, and it is empty

I believe this was St. Therese de Lisieux's view (the Little Flower) - because those in heaven could not bear to look upon the suffering of those in hell.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I can show you an example of Hell, ripped right from the headlines.
Consider the President of the US. He has assured is he is always right, always the greatest, and everything he does/touches/attends/invests in is the greatest, the best, and so forth. He assures us of this continually.
No one can believe this is true, not unless they're completely willing to part company with reality. There are photographs, recordings -- proof. He himself is either self-deceived or (possibly) demented.
Now. Is this OK? Shall he continue in this state always? Even putting aside the question of what he's doing to the rest of us, is his view of reality to remain forever unchallenged? Or, at some point, is someone (no one alive today, clearly) to pluck the scales of ego from his eyes and allow him to see things as they really are? Is he ever to know the truth? Or is he always to live in the lie?
And -- if someday he does see Truth -- do you think this will be a pleasurable experience? Or will the President experience it as a scorching fire, the worm that dieth not, a torment everlasting?

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What doesn't Patdys? Hell, judgement, Abraham's bosom, sheep, goats, everlasting fire, devil, angels. Culture.

Absolutely Martin.
But certainly my experience of church is that much of the body of Christ is behind culturally.
The brimstone and fire Hell of which is spoken is decades old and yet still informs so much faith and understanding.

I would argue that even discussing the masculinity and femininity of God could be seen as anachronistic.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I can show you an example of Hell, ripped right from the headlines.
Consider the President of the US. He has assured is he is always right, always the greatest, and everything he does/touches/attends/invests in is the greatest, the best, and so forth. He assures us of this continually.
No one can believe this is true, not unless they're completely willing to part company with reality. There are photographs, recordings -- proof. He himself is either self-deceived or (possibly) demented.
Now. Is this OK? Shall he continue in this state always? Even putting aside the question of what he's doing to the rest of us, is his view of reality to remain forever unchallenged? Or, at some point, is someone (no one alive today, clearly) to pluck the scales of ego from his eyes and allow him to see things as they really are? Is he ever to know the truth? Or is he always to live in the lie?
And -- if someday he does see Truth -- do you think this will be a pleasurable experience? Or will the President experience it as a scorching fire, the worm that dieth not, a torment everlasting?

I am horribly suspicious the answer is....

no more and no less than any one of us.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St. Paul, or one of that crowd:
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.

As much as I deplore the Tangerine Tantrum, his ultimate fate is none of my business. I have my own sins to work on and repent of.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And Nick, we crossed in the post; I was responding to Gramps49 initially. Sorry, I should have said explicitly.

As was I, Martin. The "claim" to which I was referring was the one attributed to Rob Bell in Gramps49’s post.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Kwesi--

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
..........last sentence to third last para should read "Here is a Christ who is not only creator but also one to whom we are umbilically linked. "

Acts 17:28 "In whom we live, and move, and have our being..."

That's a pregnancy image. Mentioned by Paul, when he was preaching at the Areopagus in Athens.

Or a goldfish bowl. But a God who's a goldfish bowl could be problematic. E.g., who would be looking at us???
[Biased]

[ 30. December 2017, 06:22: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am not sure what hell is, and I'm not sure that anyone is there. If anyone is there, it is because they continue to reject God; they want to have nothing to do with him.

God constantly offers his mercy to everyone who will accept it.
This is my belief as well.
I believe hell is real, and it is empty

There's an old Britcom called "Bless Me, Father". In one episode, they get to discussing this, because of someone who ran afoul of the RCC through no fault of his own. (His wife left; they didn't get divorced; and he was living with another woman. I *think* he may have been excommunicated.) After many years, he died.

Fr. Neil (young priest), Fr. D (old priest), and the extremely formidable Mother Superior of the local convent discuss the man's death, and whether he's going to Hell. Fr. D says "he was kinder to life than life was to him". Then this:

quote:
Father Neil Boyd: [to Father Duddleswell] I see. So you don't really believe that God will roast people forever and ever.

Mother Stephen: Father Boyd, the church bids every Catholic believe without question in the reality of the everlasting flames.

Father Neil Boyd: Yes. Yes, of course, Mother.

Father Charles Clement Duddleswell: And who - who but a ravin' lunatic - would ever believe that there was anybody there?

(From IMDB's quote page for the episode.)

Mother Stephen goes on to say "For once, we're in perfect agreement, Fr. Duddleswell".

[Smile]

[ 30. December 2017, 06:45: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Kwesi: "Here is a Christ who is not only creator but also one to whom we are umbilically linked. "

Golden Key:

Acts 17:28 "In whom we live, and move, and have our being..."

That's a pregnancy image. Mentioned by Paul, when he was preaching at the Areopagus in Athens.

Golden Key, thanks for that very insightful observation. :noteworthy: I had never realised the nature of the image before- but then I am a bloke! I guess it supports my view of the need female theologians to be taken more seriously to the general edification of the faithful.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

@Patdys. I couldn't agree more. Projecting any of our culture, biology on God completely misses the point. Hell is real right now, we're in it with helpless privilege and see others without, what are we doing about it? Apart from blaming, damning, projecting on Trump?

@Nick. Ah HAH! Aye, Gramps49's take on Rob Bell in Love Wins, 'He points out that the Jesus story does not say anything about anyone going to hell.', is not born out by my reading, in the 3rd chapter 'Hell' he says, 'There is hell now, and there is hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously.' p.79. He ends the chapter with '...the word “hell” works quite well. Let's keep it.'. The chapter is a gem as of the other seven jewels in that crown. In which Love Wins. Beyond all present, immediate, real hells.

So, I find myself more radical the Rob! I'd take him to task on Gehenna too. There was no city dump. But it's a good metaphor any way. Life is easily trashed, goes to hell. For half the world on a dollar a day with many of the rest of us on a hundred and more much of the time, it's utter hell already. We're all going to have uncomfortable times in our post-mortem walks in paradise alongside Donald. But it won't be hell.

[ 30. December 2017, 10:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

A couple of questions:

quote:
Patdys: I would argue that even discussing the masculinity and femininity of God could be seen as anachronistic.

Patdys, I would very much like to to expand on this observation. How, in your opinion has the debate been resolved? What is the new synthesis or paradigm?

quote:
Martin60: “Patdys. I couldn’t agree more. Projecting our culture, biology on God completely misses the point. Hell is real right now….”

What is the point that is being missed? Is it about how we understand God, or is it about the nature of Hell?

ISTM, for example, that your understanding of Hell is a projection of your culture, just as was Satre’s comment that “l'enfer c'est les autres”.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I nearly quoted Satre, but a paraphrase is more appropriate: l'infer c'est nous. The point is that Jesus' figurative hyperbole is entirely about now. Or rather it was entirely about then for His face to face Jewish audience. Nothing to do with ultimate fate. After all how could Jesus possibly know?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Golden Key wrote:

quote:
That's a pregnancy image. Mentioned by Paul, when he was preaching at the Areopagus in Athens.

I think you are right. It's actually a quote from Epimenides (who is talking about Zeus so it may not have been in Epimenides' mind), but I'm pretty sure it was in Paul's, given the rest of that verse -

quote:
For “In him we live and move and have our being”; as even some of your own poets have said, “For we too are his offspring.”

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

For someone who has lived under Margaret Thatcher's government, the idea that feminine leadership is invariably benign, gentle and compassionate is a bad joke.

I don't mean to demonise her. She was just totally lacking in imagination. And she was a very powerful personality, as many women are.

And there are female goddesses who are pretty violent. Kali with a necklace of skulls and Cybele with her castrated priests.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Exactly. Women's voices have certainly been repressed in the history of the church, but any sense that they are more likely to have certain insights is not based much more than wishful thinking.

Isaiah 49:15:

quote:
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast
and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you!

This implies that a mother can forget their babies. God is better than a mother.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Hmmm. I've always felt that (Deutero-)Isaiah was saying that even if the impossibility of a mother forgetting her child were to happen, God cannot forget His bride; that is still impossible.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

I don't see any mention of impossibility in the phrase "Though she may forget".

Traits and behaviours attributed to God as father in the bible include:

quote:

Father of the fatherless and protector of widows is God in his holy habitation. (Psalm 68:5)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places (Ephesians 1:3)

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.(Luke 10:21)

As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him. (Psalm 103:13)

But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. (Luke 15:20, a parable about God's love)

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. (1 John 3:1)

Plus Jesus' talk of "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) implies that Jesus's work of healing and compassion demonstrates God the Father's own self.

All this is not to say that only God the Father is compassionate, or deny images of God as mother in the bible, rather, the linking of God the Father to traits in the bible gives one a view of utter compassion. There's a lot of dodgy genocidal stuff in the bible, certainly, but that wasn't explicitly linked to God's fatherhood.

The false dichotomy of father=violence/mother=compassionate has more to do with people who are old enough to remember John Wayne-style men, a modal confined to one period of time.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Rosa Winke : The false dichotomy of father=violence/mother=compassionate has more to do with people who are old enough to remember John Wayne-style men, a modal confined to one period of time.

Rosa, you make a very fair point and back it with sound scriptural references. The question, however, is why then the need for the Blessed Virgin Mary to intercede with the Son and the Father if those feminine qualities are already identified with the nature Godhead? The argument is that an historically male-dominated theological discourse has had a certain lacuna regarding the feminine side of God's nature which you have identified.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
The argument is that an historically male-dominated theological discourse has had a certain lacuna regarding the feminine side of God's nature which you have identified.

"feminine side"? You mean that traits related to God as a Father?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

.....end of line 3 should read "the nature of the Godhead?"

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

As I understand you, Rosa, your argument is that God the Father has characteristics which encompass qualities that we would regard as masculine and feminine, but which we tend to see as predominantly characteristic of either males or females. I have no difficulty with that. My argument is that a male-dominated theology over the centuries has tended to ignore or downplay the feminine aspects of God's nature, which you have identified in your quotations, thereby presented an unbalanced understanding of his character. To my mind the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary is evidence of that deficiency.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Rosa, you make a very fair point and back it with sound scriptural references. The question, however, is why then the need for the Blessed Virgin Mary to intercede with the Son and the Father if those feminine qualities are already identified with the nature Godhead?

You can't fully understand the "need" of the BVM without understanding the First Crusade. Euro Christian males were told you weren't a REAL Christian unless you went and killed Saracens. The masculine side (tough, murderous) of God was all. For want of a way of being Christian without being a murderous ape, people turned to the Theotokos. Karen Armstrong does a good job bringing this out, but one imagines other writers on the history of the period would cast light on this phenomenon, in particular the brutalization of Christianity in the First Crusade, and the swing the other way in the cult of the BVM.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Would creating liturgies and prayers where Christians worship Sophia, be okay?

After all, Sophia or Wisdom is mentioned in the Bible.

There is one hymn that I sang where Wisdom is explicitly mentioned:

https://hymnary.org/text/who_comes_from_god_as_word_and_breath

Interestingly, the tune is the Salve Regina Coelitum, the traditional tune of the Hail Holy Queen Anthem.

[ 01. January 2018, 21:29: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I think there is a danger of isolating an element, in this case concepts of Hell, from their surrounding contexts. How does any understanding of Hell fit in with other contemporary theological ideas?

For example, what about the Harrowing of Hell, which had traction in the mediaeval world? Luther believed in it, and the 1557 Lutheran Formula of Concord stated: "we believe simply that the entire person, God and human being, descended to Hell after his burial, conquered the devil, destroyed the power of Hell, and took from the devil all his power.”

ISTM this is a view of Hell that is very different from the notion of a place where God sends people to be tortured, but an evil domain from which humanity has been wrenched by a victorious Christ. In modern terms it chimes in with the view that Hell is something experienced in human history and from which we need to be rescued a la Martin60, if I understand him correctly.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

To a large extent you can blame English translations for that confusion, Kwesi, though they are following the Latin "descendit ad inferna" in the Apostles creed. The Greek is more like "descended to the underworld".

The "hell" in the harrowing of hell (as in the Apostles creed) is surely Hades, the abode of the dead where almost nothing happens. The fiery hell is the translation of the Gehenna of fire and presumably the fiery bits of Revelation. A perennial source of confusion.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Three points occur:

A For Christians, the nature of God is revealed above all in Christ on the cross – a man, but an emasculated man.

B in terms of creedal orthodoxy, God is the Trinity so God the Father is only an element in understanding God. And the fatherhood is not a biological or human fatherhood. The Son is eternally begotten and the Father never existed without the Son.

C To my mind, an Earth Mother Fertility Goddess would not be good news. She would mean life is only a matter of producing children to carry on the race. The cross and resurrection break out of that circle: we matter eternally as individuals not as potential parents.

All three points indicate why heterosexuality is no longer normative for Christians.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Kwesi, mousethief; a fascinating line of argument. Might one ask for an Armstrong reference? And aye Kwesi, you understand me just fine on Hell; as to its harrowing the C2nd onward doctrine of which diverges from demonic tartarus to the dead's hades without warrant.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Honest Ron Bacardi: To a large extent you can blame English translations for that confusion, Kwesi, though they are following the Latin "descendit ad inferna" in the Apostles creed. The Greek is more like "descended to the underworld".

The "hell" in the harrowing of hell (as in the Apostles creed) is surely Hades, the abode of the dead where almost nothing happens. The fiery hell is the translation of the Gehenna of fire and presumably the fiery bits of Revelation. A perennial source of confusion.

Thanks for your observation, and I readily admit my ignorance. I wonder, however, why what you identify as an obvious confusion has not been so for a number of prominent Christian theologians in the past, including Luther, Calvin, Aquinas and so on?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Thanks for the confirmation, Martin60!

An element I should have made more explicit in linking Hell with the Harrowing of Hell is the Ransom Theory of Atonement dating from the early church, where Christ is identified as Redeemer. It is expressed in the hymn O Come, O Come,Emmanuel, with its latin origins in the Middle Ages, including the stanzas:

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
 And ransom captive Israel ,
That mourns in lonely exile here
 Until the Son of God appear:

 Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel 
Shall come to thee, O Israel.

  O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan's tyranny ;
From depths of Hell Thy people save,
 And give them victory o'er the grave.

 Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel :
Shall come to thee, O Israel. 

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The most beautiful hymn I know.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
An element I should have made more explicit in linking Hell with the Harrowing of Hell is the Ransom Theory of Atonement dating from the early church, where Christ is identified as Redeemer.

I don't know any Hebrew, and only a small amount of Greek. From what I have heard, I think that the NT idea of Redeemer comes from the OT idea of Redeemer as mentioned in Job, and Kinsman-Redeemer as mentioned in Ruth.

A redeemer was one who did something for you that you could not do for yourself. There is no idea of debt or guilt. You just needed to be helped out of a bad situation.

It's possible that my understanding of the OT idea of redeemer is incorrect. I would appreciate comments.

Moo

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Kwesi wrote:

quote:
I wonder, however, why what you identify as an obvious confusion has not been so for a number of prominent Christian theologians in the past, including Luther, Calvin, Aquinas and so on?

I'm honestly not familiar with the writings of any of these gentlemen on the subject, Kwesi - it's not really an interest of mine!

But maybe I should clarify that the the confusion I referred to was the potential confusion of referent. For all I know they may have been clear in what they were referring to.

Going back to the Latin, The word inferna does seem to have been a pretty close translation of the Greek, and carries connotations of "under", and "below" (specifically relating to the grave). By the time its descendant "infernal" has made its way into Middle English, it seems to have picked up all the fiery, devilish, demonic tones that so delighted our medieval ancestors. Though when that happened I don't know. I'll see if I can find any information on that.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
An element I should have made more explicit in linking Hell with the Harrowing of Hell is the Ransom Theory of Atonement dating from the early church, where Christ is identified as Redeemer.
I don't know any Hebrew, and only a small amount of Greek. From what I have heard, I think that the NT idea of Redeemer comes from the OT idea of Redeemer as mentioned in Job, and Kinsman-Redeemer as mentioned in Ruth.

A redeemer was one who did something for you that you could not do for yourself. There is no idea of debt or guilt. You just needed to be helped out of a bad situation.

It's possible that my understanding of the OT idea of redeemer is incorrect. I would appreciate comments.

Moo

Useful observation, Moo.

Here's the Mighty Oracle on Go'el. It would seem that payment may be involved (e.g. redeeming a kinsman from slavery), but not necessarily.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye, just read that, fascinating. Especially the vengeful stuff.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Moo: It's possible that my understanding of the OT idea of redeemer is incorrect. I would appreciate comments.

Remember, Moo, I’m not claiming that these ideas are firmly grounded in the bible. What I am interested in is the ways theological metaphors come to be and develop, and how they might relate to one another. I have no desire to claim that the concept of Redeemer in the OT has anything to do with a future “Harrowing of Hell” or Ransom theory of the atonement. Indeed, what this post has thrown up is that important and culturally influential theological ideas, in this case about Hell and its nature, arise, which are weakly rooted in scripture. We recall that Anglican-Brat’s initial question arose from an ”apocryphal legend, relat[ing] to how the Blessed Virgin Mary, upon visiting the fires of hell, apparently prayed that the souls of hell might be temporarily released from their suffering.” I suppose it’s an example of how Heath-Robinson the architecture of theology can become: a weakness in understanding of the nature of God occasioned strange ideas concerning the nature and role of Mary. Add-ons are usually less satisfying than a return to the drawing board, but who wants a return to Chalcedon?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

I'm wondering however, if our understanding of divine justice and judgment is rooted in the traditional understanding of God as primarily masculine. The Father punishes while the Mother is loving and merciful.

I think we should go back to Eden.

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves."

Where is God's judgment here?
Nowhere; God did place upon them the consequences they felt after their disobedience - but those consequences of their sin were immediately felt - knowledge of things they shouldn't have known (including the reality of death), shame, and a desire to hide from God.

When God appeared, he cursed the serpent for what he had done; then he pronounced an increase in the woman's pain in childbirth and made the man's work harder. No eternal consequences of hell here.

He then banished them from the Garden - not as a punishment but as a precaution so they would not eat from the tree of life in their fallen state and live forever unredeemed.

He then gave the word of hope - that a Saviour would come and rescue humanity from their acquaintance with death, shame and estrangement from God.

I see nothing at all in this story about a wrathful God sending Adam and Eve to Hell.

I do see a wrathful God having an opinion on man's actions since the Fall - starting with murder of course - but redemption is the action and reaction of a merciful God who simply wants his people back.

Hell, sadly, is the consequence for those who refuse his efforts to save them. He leaves the unredeemed in their state of 'fallenness' and with the consequences f their subsequent unforgiven actions.

But I don't see that as a male God punishing people in a way that a female god wouldn't.

[ 03. January 2018, 17:06: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Mudfrog: When God appeared, he cursed the serpent for what he had done; then he pronounced an increase in the woman's pain in childbirth and made the man's work harder. No eternal consequences of hell here.

Ironically, Mudfrog, your reasoned argument demonstrates precisely why there is a greater need for the feminine in theological thinking. Only a male who has never experienced labour could accept the pains of childbirth as a just continuing punishment for Eve and her daughters, or ignore the injustice of a perpetual subservience of wives to their husbands. It reeks of corrupted patriarchy.

Furthermore, your insistence on the wrathful nature of God is by no means eccentric, though it does express his nature at its most macho. It is by no means surprising that it took a female theologian, Julian of Norwich, to challenge that whole thesis:

“But in God may be no wrath, as to my sight…..… I saw truthfully that our lord was never wroth nor never shall be. For he is God, he is good, he is truth, he is love, he is peace. And his might, his wisdom, his charity, and his unity do not permit him to be wroth. For I saw truly that it is against the property of his might to be wroth, and against the property of his wisdom, and against the property of his goodness. God is that goodness that may not be wroth, for God is nothing but goodness.”

Even if you cannot accept my argument you have to address the question raised by Anglican_Brat concerning the reasons for the cult of the Virgin Mary. How would you account for it?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
To a large extent you can blame English translations for that confusion, Kwesi, though they are following the Latin "descendit ad inferna" in the Apostles creed. The Greek is more like "descended to the underworld".

The "hell" in the harrowing of hell (as in the Apostles creed) is surely Hades, the abode of the dead where almost nothing happens. The fiery hell is the translation of the Gehenna of fire and presumably the fiery bits of Revelation. A perennial source of confusion.

This book suggests that most of our ideas about Hell come from Dante, not from scripture.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The misunderstanding of I Peter 3:19-20 (tacitly augmented by I Peter 4:6 a few verses on) predates its implication in the Apostles Creed by two centuries starting with Melito of Sardis in the C2nd.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0