Thread: "Church" of Sweden to stop referring to God as Lord Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005720
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/24/church-of-sweden-to-stop-referring-to-god-as-he-or-lord
Having dropped the lordship of God in doctrine and practice decades ago, seems natural that they adapt liturgy as well.
Wonder if that will bring a cultural revolution. Will Sweden become more inclusive now that the few remaining old ladies who still go to church will hear that God is not male? Or will the remaining faithful christians finally transfer to independent churches?
Wonder what are they going to do with Bible readings. Not that the Bible has any importance to liberal christians, but surely the traditional liturgies at least demand they are read during the service. It´s going to be a hard time avoiding all passages that don´t fit with their gender ideology.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think it's fair to say that the Bible has 'no importance' for liberal Christians, Gorpo.
But by any traditional or conservative theological standards the Church of Sweden went astray a good while ago.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Will Sweden become more inclusive now that the few remaining old ladies who still go to church will hear that God is not male?
Well, I would think that a sincere Christian who thought that God was male would, upon hearing the opposite from a COS pulpit, switch to a denomination that still taught that doctrine. Rather than quitting church altogether.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Lost in translation? Herr in German is both mister and lord. Herre is what comes up for Swedish for lord. Perhaps the word doesn't connote the same thing in English.
Lord is pretty much at the same level as thee or thou. Old timey language. Need to hear from a Swede.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
What to expect from an archbishop who claims that the virgin birth is not true story and that it´s perfectly possible to be an atheist and a christian at the same time?
It´s just atheism with rituals. It´s painful to see a church with such a rich tradition and doctrine succumb to the control of these morons.
Uniting church and stated was never a good idea. To have bureaucrats instead of people of God leading a Church is the cause of it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Thinking of the Christian god in terms of gender is rather ridiculous. It is a limitation on the limitless and reflects ancient paternalism rather than any solid theology. If, for sake of falimiarity, one wishes to assign a gender to God; female makes as much sense as male.
After all, Moses spoke burning bush, not a burning phallus.
[ 25. November 2017, 18:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Uniting church and stated was never a good idea. To have bureaucrats instead of people of God leading a Church is the cause of it.
I think this may be overstating it. Spong was not a government bureaucrat.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Need to hear from a Swede.
I'm the daughter of a Swede. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Doesn't make me an expert on the Church of Sweden, but this story seems more nuanced than some news outlets are reporting. Apparently, variations are offered re: how to refer to God in worship, and somewhere along the line, folks started reporting that there was a ban.
A Swedish site with a headline "No, the Swedish Church has not banned the male pronoun for God"
sabine
[ 25. November 2017, 18:54: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Interestingly, Brietbart News got on the "Church of Sweden stripping God of gender" bandwagon. I think I'll stick with the report in the link in my last post.
sabine
[ 25. November 2017, 19:01: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Lost in translation?
Any attempt to put the character of God into human language will always result in a significant loss. Whether that language is English, Swedish or Hebrew. When you then take that feeble attempt to express things in Hebrew or Greek and translate into yet another language it's a miracle we do as well as we do.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
After all, Moses spoke burning bush, not a burning phallus.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Assigning a gender to God has historically caused way too many problems. Future humanity needs to assign a gender neutral God or abandon the concept entirely. Not that it’s ever going to happen, I mean, what would we find to argue over then.
Also be quite a task to get all the Hims and He's out of Christian songs and formal prayers. As for other religions? Get real, might as freakin' well forget it.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
So, it turns out that gorpo is an ill-informed twonk. Anyone surprised? Anyone?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Bad reporting by The Grauniad, too.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
IJ
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
So, it turns out that gorpo is an ill-informed twonk. Anyone surprised? Anyone?
He should get together with Russ, I'm sure they would get along just fine.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Need to hear from a Swede.
I'm the daughter of a Swede. . Doesn't make me an expert on the Church of Sweden, but this story seems more nuanced than some news outlets are reporting. Apparently, variations are offered re: how to refer to God in worship, and somewhere along the line, folks started reporting that there was a ban.
A Swedish site with a headline "No, the Swedish Church has not banned the male pronoun for God"
sabine
I was going to post this story, but then I came across the same Swedish link you did, and decided it probably wasn't worth the fuss.
I imagine that the confusion arose because there are probably very few Swedish journalists who have any deep understanding of the Church of Sweden and its liturgies, and I don't suppose any of them have actually sat down and compared the new service book with the old one. These are the people who would've sent an inaccurate story around the world.
Still, it would be interesting to know if any other Lutherans, or any other denominations anywhere, have created similar alternative 'official' liturgies.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
I think that some blame for misunderstanding can also be laid at the feet of those who write headlines. Sometimes a person has to get past the clickbait lead to find the nuance.
sabine
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Scandinavia proves a challenge because by in large, it seems that one reason for the decline in Christian faith is the Norway, Sweden and Denmark, generally are happy countries.
I heard it said that Scandinavia dumped the religious bits of Christianity and integrated the ethical bits of Christianity in their social democratic ethos, a long, long time ago.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
Most mainline clergy, I know of, other than reciting the Lord's Prayer and the Creeds, has noticeably stopped using "Father" and "Lord" in addressing the divine in extemporaneous prayer.
Usually they use terms such as "loving God", "Gracious God", "Holy One", and "Creator".
I really don't think God minds what we call Her.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
So, to conclude.
English language newspaper article misunderstands update of Swedish liturgical practice.
Well, that's worth getting really upset about, gorpo. I'm glad we were here for you in your hour of need.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Lost in translation? Herr in German is both mister and lord.
As is Señor in Spanish.
I sometimes wonder, too, if “Lord” carries different connotations within the U.K. compared to outside the U.K.
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I imagine that the confusion arose because there are probably very few Swedish journalists who have any deep understanding of the Church of Sweden and its liturgies . . . .
My experience suggest that you could leave out the Swedish references and still be fairly accurate: “I imagine the confusion arose because there are very few journalists who have any deep understanding of the Church and its liturgies."
quote:
Still, it would be interesting to know if any other Lutherans, or any other denominations anywhere, have created similar alternative 'official' liturgies.
Of course. In North American mainline Protestantism and Anglicanism, conversations and developments about inclusive language with regard to God and humanity have been going on for decades; those conversations are reflected in liturgies and hymnals. In some denominations (the United Church of Christ comes to mind) the changes are sometimes fairly drastic, while in others they are more subtle.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Hmmm. I thought this might be the case, so it really is quite odd that this strange story appeared from Sweden. Not only inaccurate, but out of date....
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Ironically, Sweden is also the source of an educational video about what happens when people read clickbait that's designed to make them react, and don't spend a moment checking out the accuracy of the story.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Wonder what are they going to do with Bible readings.
I'm sure they can find some way to render YHWH in Swedish. Seeing as it doesn't literally mean "LORD" in the first place.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
You mean they are not all going to he double hockey sticks for using the wrong terminiology about God?
Well, doggone it, who can we send to heck for using terminology we don't like?
Surely there are other heretics out there. Maybe somebody who doesn't think every important thing about God wasn't already decided over a thousand years ago? Gotta be some of those theological libtards out there we can condemn.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Gotta be some of those theological libtards out there we can condemn.
Oh-oh, watch out non-trinitarians and/or universalists How about umbrage iver using the "wrong" translation of the Bible.
sabine
[ 26. November 2017, 02:32: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
The debate about inclusive language regarding God is a debate about how we understand divine revelation.
A form of liberalism suggests that there is no such thing as pure divine revelation that exists without human construction. Scripture is not infallible or inerrant, because scripture was written by humans and humans are fallible and flawed. The statement "God is Father" is a human construction, a human grasp of a divine mystery that cannot be fully understood in this life. So, one human construction is no better than another.
Theological conservatism might argue that there is divine revelation that is absolute and exists before human understanding. Therefore the statement "God is Father" is a divine command from God himself and thus cannot be altered.
When it boils down to it, that's the dichotomy between I think between liberal Christianity and conservative Christianity. Liberal Christianity posits that Tradition is not the "Truth" and thus can be subject to revision and re-imagination, whereas conservative Christianity posits that Tradition is the "Truth".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
When it boils down to it, that's the dichotomy between I think between liberal Christianity and conservative Christianity. Liberal Christianity posits that Tradition is not the "Truth" and thus can be subject to revision and re-imagination, whereas conservative Christianity posits that Tradition is the "Truth".
That sounds like the contrast not between liberalism and conservatism, but between the Reformers and the Catholic Church in the 16th century.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
I'd say it maybe describes the far ends of the conservative/liberal spectrum, though I wonder if, at least in the Protestant context, “Tradition” is the best word to use. A hard-core conservative Protestant position would not posit that “Tradition" is the truth, but rather that Scripture proclaims the truth, and would not equate Scripture with Tradition.
But I think there’s a middle position there, where many (not hard-core) conservatives and liberals find common ground. That middle position would say that statements such as “God is Father” are indeed human constructs and demonstrate the inadequacies of human language to explain a mystery. But that position would also say that such statements represent an attempt to articulate what God has revealed about the divine nature and have to be taken seriously.
On one hand, speaking of God as Father must be maintained in certain circumstances, because it is part of the Scriptural witness/Tradition and because there are ecumenical implications in rejecting wholesale that language. (My own tribe has been insistent on this with regard to the baptismal formula or other liturgical phrases that refer to that formula.)
On the other hand, neither Scriptural witness nor Tradition require that God be spoken of only as “Father," and insisting on such a limited and limiting use of language risks limiting or distorting our understanding of God.
The devil, of course, is in the details.
[ 26. November 2017, 03:53: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
Nobody tell gorpo about the changes the SEC has permitted:
http://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/publications/liturgies/permitted-changes-to-the-1982-liturgy/
Might cause their (ooh, did you see what I did there? Gender neutral and everything) poor little head to explode.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
I thought it already had.
IJ
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
There needs to be something in a head for it to explode. A skull containing nothing is going to implode.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There needs to be something in a head for it to explode. A skull containing nothing is going to implode.
Surely overheated shit is highly explosive?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
"Shit for brains" is still an exaggeration when it comes to the mental capacity of gorpo.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Just so.
A slight aside, but could the scare quotes please be removed from the word 'Church' in the thread title?
Whatever gorpo thinks (and I use the word loosely), There Are Good Lutheran Christians In Sweden, and their Church is just as much a proper church as all the rest who believe in God (in whatever way they express that belief).
IJ
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
A slight aside, but could the scare quotes please be removed from the word 'Church' in the thread title?
Not going to do that. But on next H&A day, we might have "gorpo" in scare quotes instead.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
That'll do nicely, thank you. It'll be like those awfully graphic health warnings on cigarette cartons...
Meanwhile, here's a few old ladies celebrating Easter in a Swedish 'church'.
IJ
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Meanwhile, here's a few old ladies celebrating Easter in a Swedish 'church'.
IJ
Seems the choir created a bit of a bottleneck for incoming clergy.
sabine
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Yes, indeed - they only have such a large choir on High Days and Holy Days, AFAIK.
/tangent alert, but not for gropo's attention/
A fair turnout, though, for a town of only 19000 inhabitants - and this is only one of the four churches making up what I take to be the equivalent of a Team Parish in the UK. On a normal Sunday, there is one Eucharist at each church (0930, 1100, 1600, and 1800). I think this service - the 1100 service at the principal church - was attended by singers, clergy, and perhaps others, from the other churches, but they probably each had their own Hogmassa as well.
/back to rubbishing 'churches' of the Librul Perswasion.
IJ
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'd say it maybe describes the far ends of the conservative/liberal spectrum, though I wonder if, at least in the Protestant context, “Tradition” is the best word to use. A hard-core conservative Protestant position would not posit that “Tradition" is the truth, but rather that Scripture proclaims the truth, and would not equate Scripture with Tradition.
Exactly my point. Pitting Tradition against Truth is a Reformation thing.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To be fair, even some of the most librul Christians I know think that Sweden is almost semi-pagan these days.
Swedes themselves have told me the same thing.
But then, the use of 'Gorpo' and 'brain' in the same sentence is problematic.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I`ve heard it said by an expert that Sweden was never properly christianised in the first place. But perhaps that was said in jest.
Still, it's clear that Sweden is a completely different place from gorpo's Brazil. Sweden is one of the most secularised places on earth, while Brazil is one of the most religious. The cultural and social environment is going to be entirely different. Most of us would find it hard to be grounded in one of those cultures and easily understand the other.
I imagine that most of the Westerners who post here would feel a greater connection with Swedish than with Brazilian religiosity, despite misgivings about secularisation or the theology of the Church of Sweden. The environment is simply more culturally familiar to us.
FWIW, I've enjoyed Christian hospitality in Sweden, but if I had to put money on it I'd say that Brazilian Christianity had more of a future.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, but the elephant in Gormless's room is that a lot of Brazilian religiosity is incredibly syncretic and completely 'unsound' from the kind of conservative evangelical person he appears to favour.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I have also heard it said that Sweden and the like are becoming a living example of Bonhoeffer's idea of religionless Christianity.
I for one see far more future in that than the obverse, which is gaining power in many other places. The institutions may not look like contemporary churches, but will almost certainly be none the worse for that.
"Christian" religion with no heart, no soul, nothing but rules and texts, is a monster, and truly a foretaste of hell. Also promoted by gormless and his horrific tribe.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Scripture is not infallible or inerrant, because scripture was written by humans and humans are fallible and flawed.
Frankly this has nothing to do with it, because Scripture was not written in Swedish. Or English. We're not even talking about writers, we're talking about translators.
So put that caricature away back in your toybox.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'd say it maybe describes the far ends of the conservative/liberal spectrum, though I wonder if, at least in the Protestant context, “Tradition” is the best word to use. A hard-core conservative Protestant position would not posit that “Tradition" is the truth, but rather that Scripture proclaims the truth, and would not equate Scripture with Tradition.
Exactly my point. Pitting Tradition against Truth is a Reformation thing.
Yes, I was responding to Anglican_Brat and broadly agreeing with you. (I think the classical Reformation perspective(s) are more nuanced and complicated than “pitting Tradition against Scripture,” which I think verges a bit toward caricature, but I readily see your point.) Sorry if my train of thought wasn’t clear.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
Meanwhile, I see that gorpo has once again thrown a stink bomb into the hold and then run away. At least this time he did it in the right place - Hell - rather than Purgatory.
I expect it will return when it finds more, ah, fake news to share with us here.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Yes, I was responding to Anglican_Brat and broadly agreeing with you. (I think the classical Reformation perspective(s) are more nuanced and complicated than “pitting Tradition against Scripture,” which I think verges a bit toward caricature, but I readily see your point.) Sorry if my train of thought wasn’t clear.
No problem. And you're right, that's a crude way of putting it. And the original Reformers weren't nearly so dismissive of church tradition as many of their 21st century spiritual descendants. Of course most o-f the leading lights of the Reformation also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Their descendants have gone off the rails in more ways than one.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The arc is long.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
And tends towards Just Us.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, but the elephant in Gormless's room is that a lot of Brazilian religiosity is incredibly syncretic and completely 'unsound' from the kind of conservative evangelical person he appears to favour.
But you seem to think that all Christianity that's too far away from Europe's precious theological colleges is 'unsound'!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
However, it would be interesting to hear what gorpo thinks of Brazil's African-inflected heresies.
I'm guessing that they tend not to be associated with middle class, educated Brazilian Christians, so they therefore seem less of a threat than the heresies of wealthy, Lutheran Sweden.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, I wasn't saying that, SvitlanaV2, I was simply making the observation that Gorpo has double-standards in pointing the finger at nasty lib'rul Sweden when his own country has more than enough 'heresies' of its own to go round ...
To be fair, I think he's mentioned one or two over the years.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And tends towards Just Us.
Ver' good. Ver' ver' good. One hopes against experience so. That faith survives the aging out of patriarchy. Chance 'd be fine thing. Unless you meant something else ... ?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
It's my own suspicion that gorpo's own historical Protestant denomination is rather too posh to have many syncretists in it. They're probably from a different social class than gorpo, and it's possible that s/he knows very little about them. (After all, it's a country with millions and millions of religious people of very many kinds). If so, this may make it a bit awkward for him/her to criticise them too vociferously.
Gorpo probably feels a greater historical kinship to Swedish Lutheranism than to some random Afro-Pentecostal cult or superstitious RCs. And as we know, enmity is often greater between estranged family members than between total strangers ....
[ 27. November 2017, 20:29: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
Gorpo reminds me of the less appealing, less-tolerant sort of Missouri Synod Lutheran I've encountered: All truth may be found in the councils of the Purple Vatican in Kirkwood, Missouri, and nowhere else; girls have cooties; and anyone who disagrees is not really a Christian.
Happily, I know several MoSyn Lutherans who are sane, intelligent, and humorous women, but they're not the ones in charge.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
If Gorpo hates the Church of Sweden, he'd be really pissed at the 1980's, when many of us went through the same conversations about God and gender.
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
Gorpo is a jackass and a coward, a hit-and-run artist who lacks the courage of his bad deeds. He needs to try defending his outrageous statements - or to simply stop making them.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
Gorpo is a jackass and a coward, a hit-and-run artist who lacks the courage of his bad deeds. He needs to try defending his outrageous statements - or to simply stop making them.
We have a few hyperconservatives with this M.O.
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
What's a lord? We don't have them in Australia. At least they went out of fashion when Bob Hawke became PM. It's now an anachronistic title.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I'm astounded to think anyone actueally thinks God ticks a box in the gender section of his character sheet. In fact, I'm astounded to think anyone imagines he can fill in *any* boxes on the "created living things" sheet.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Let alone be limited by the name that we use.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Is God's 'character sheet' available anywhere online?
It would be an interesting document....
IJ
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Is God's 'character sheet' available anywhere online?
It would be an interesting document....
IJ
Not really. All attributes and skills at +Infinity, except Height, Weight and Build which have "category error".
[ 29. November 2017, 16:58: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Let alone be limited by the name that we use.
I think I AM is a good one.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
I Am In Various Tenses With You.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm astounded to think anyone actually thinks God ticks a box in the gender section of his character sheet.
But He did. He clicked "male" when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm astounded to think anyone actually thinks God ticks a box in the gender section of his character sheet.
But He did. He clicked "male" when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
That’s one Person, and I think it’s abundantly clear that it’s not the Person of the Trinity that anyone on this thread has been talking about.
But thank you for that technically correct yet weirdly unhelpful observation.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm astounded to think anyone actually thinks God ticks a box in the gender section of his character sheet.
But He did. He clicked "male" when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
That’s one Person, and I think it’s abundantly clear that it’s not the Person of the Trinity that anyone on this thread has been talking about.
But thank you for that technically correct yet weirdly unhelpful observation.
Is Jesus not God?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm astounded to think anyone actually thinks God ticks a box in the gender section of his character sheet.
But He did. He clicked "male" when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
That’s one Person, and I think it’s abundantly clear that it’s not the Person of the Trinity that anyone on this thread has been talking about.
But thank you for that technically correct yet weirdly unhelpful observation.
Is Jesus not God?
Is the Holy Spirit Jesus? Is the Father Jesus? Your question is either off-base or disingenuous. Only the Second Person was incarnate. The First and Third persons were not incarnate. Therefore there are things true of the persons that are not true of the Godhead as a whole. The Father was not circumcised on the 8th day. The Spirit was not baptised in the Jordan. The Second Person was made flesh in the person of a male human being. The other two persons have no gender.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm astounded to think anyone actually thinks God ticks a box in the gender section of his character sheet.
But He did. He clicked "male" when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
That’s one Person, and I think it’s abundantly clear that it’s not the Person of the Trinity that anyone on this thread has been talking about.
But thank you for that technically correct yet weirdly unhelpful observation.
Is Jesus not God?
You persist in being absolutely correct and yet unable to read for context.
Perhaps the thread on dual meanings of “America” should be expanded to discuss dual meanings of “God”. A term that is frequently shorthand for God the Father.
[ 30. November 2017, 03:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Second Person was made flesh in the person of a male human being. The other two persons have no gender.
And I would argue that if the three Persons are one perfect Being, Jesus' gender isn't completely male. Male only makes sense given the time period, it cannot have significance beyond that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Second Person was made flesh in the person of a male human being. The other two persons have no gender.
And I would argue that if the three Persons are one perfect Being, Jesus' gender isn't completely male. Male only makes sense given the time period, it cannot have significance beyond that.
I'd say that's one way of viewing it, but it is possible to look at it in other ways. It is dangerous putting TOO much weight on the divine dick, no doubt.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I would suggest it's dangerous to put too much weight on any dick, divine, cranial (as in gorpo's case) or otherwise. Likely to result in injury. Of course if your tastes run that way...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm astounded to think anyone actually thinks God ticks a box in the gender section of his character sheet.
But He did. He clicked "male" when He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
That’s one Person, and I think it’s abundantly clear that it’s not the Person of the Trinity that anyone on this thread has been talking about.
But thank you for that technically correct yet weirdly unhelpful observation.
Is Jesus not God?
Is the Holy Spirit Jesus? Is the Father Jesus? Your question is either off-base or disingenuous. Only the Second Person was incarnate. The First and Third persons were not incarnate. Therefore there are things true of the persons that are not true of the Godhead as a whole. The Father was not circumcised on the 8th day. The Spirit was not baptised in the Jordan. The Second Person was made flesh in the person of a male human being. The other two persons have no gender.
So, genuine question, the totality of the Second Person incarnated as male? Jesus was or contained the Second Person? The divine nature is the Second Person, shorn of His omnis?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Second Person was made flesh in the person of a male human being. The other two persons have no gender.
And I would argue that if the three Persons are one perfect Being, Jesus' gender isn't completely male. Male only makes sense given the time period, it cannot have significance beyond that.
The Being in this case being a substance. Not a person of Persons, a gestalt. And again, a trans-infinity, pre-eternity, inextricably perichoretic Person became an insensate conceptus?
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I Am In Various Tenses With You.
I get the "I Am In Various Tenses" but why the "With You"?
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus was or contained the Second Person? The divine nature is the Second Person, shorn of His omnis?
I'm not an expert, but I tend to think that Jesus *was* the Second Person. Mary "contained" the second person for a number of weeks.
Going back to the comparison with the burning bush, I tend to think the burning bush "contained" God, rather than *was* God. So the burning bush is more like Mary (c.f. the Biblical Litany to Our Lady)
It's a good question though - I mean, for all words that we use for "God", do they mean God or do they mean a specific person of the Trinity?
Is Allah a word for God, or for the first person?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
EM--
AIUI, "Allah" is simply the local name for God, and not just for Muslims.
Islam is very strict about Allah being one--so asking if that corresponds to God the Father might not compute.
But it might be that if you found a Muslim who was into comparative religion and thought experiments, they might be willing to compare notes about concepts of God/Allah.
FWIW.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus was or contained the Second Person? The divine nature is the Second Person, shorn of His omnis?
I'm not an expert, but I tend to think that Jesus *was* the Second Person. Mary "contained" the second person for a number of weeks.
Going back to the comparison with the burning bush, I tend to think the burning bush "contained" God, rather than *was* God. So the burning bush is more like Mary (c.f. the Biblical Litany to Our Lady)
It's a good question though - I mean, for all words that we use for "God", do they mean God or do they mean a specific person of the Trinity?
Is Allah a word for God, or for the first person?
Thanks E.M. (Do you play jazz piano wrongly?)
If Jesus was the Second Person, what happened to the human person that always arises in the conception of a normal human ovum?
[ 01. December 2017, 10:35: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I don't know how we can even have this discussion if we don't speak the language in question. As for English, I find "he," much broader than "she." I never read, "Man must live by bread alone" or "Blessed is he who..." to refer only to male humans. If so we would have to think Jesus only ever spoke to guys and the ladies were supposed to be in the kitchen like Martha -- and we know that was not the case.
"Man, mankind,and he," can all be used in English to refer to both genders of humans, while she is never used that way.
When someone refers to God as he I don't picture male parts, just that vague spirit-being only Martin can describe, but when God is called "She," I do picture a full breasted Amazonian figure, and I also picture my fellow feminists nodding and smirking to each other. I can't help it.
"My Lord," just seems like a way of humbling oneself before one who is vastly superior. We always refer to our cat as, "his lordship."
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You're all boring me now. Go away.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
A gentleman is never bored.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
To continue this tangent: quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know how we can even have this discussion if we don't speak the language in question. As for English, I find "he," much broader than "she." I never read, "Man must live by bread alone" or "Blessed is he who..." to refer only to male humans. If so we would have to think Jesus only ever spoke to guys and the ladies were supposed to be in the kitchen like Martha -- and we know that was not the case.
There are two conventions in English, one is the inclusive he. when gender is unknown use masculine pronouns.
The other more archaic one, brought back into popularity by Jane Austen, is singular use of they or them. The sentence, "If someone is selling goods at your door, do not open to them." is correct.
I use singular them whenever its use is not confusing and only then will I use inclusive male pronouns. Anything is preferable to the hideous he/she. People who use that should be taken out and shot as a service to humanity.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
A gentleman is never bored.
A gentleman never had to read this thread.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
And neither did a gentleman start it.
IJ
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Perhaps if we ask nicely enough some gentleman will close it.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Which would be a Boon and a Blessing to all Gentlemen!
IJ
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Which would be a Boon and a Blessing to all Gentlemen! ...
...and others.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Yes, of course.
Sorry.... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
(I had in mind the old advert for pen nibs, to wit:
They come as a boon and a blessing to men, the Pickwick, the Owl, and the Waverley pen.)
IJ
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
No worries, BF.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0