Love your Mother: ..a mothering God isn't a feminist heresy

[GreenPartyVoter]

Church of England Bishop of Bolton, the Rt. Rev. David Gillett, has called upon Christians to recognize the "motherhood" of God, and to de-masculinize the divine by remembering that a "mothering" God isn't a feminist heresy...

More...

[CrazyOrangeCat]

1. Amen.

We've got eunf errant masculinity going on . . .

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Exactly. Until I'd read Borg's "Heart of Christianity" I had no idea that

the word for Wisdom in the Bible was of a feminine form implying that God had a female companion/side.

[OneBlueSky]

3. God is coming . . . and She's pissed! . . . n/t

.

[manic expression]

4. OK sentiment, but

it strikes me as a paradox. Christianity has always made feminism a secondary role, while it has been rejected from the same pedastal that masculinity is put on. To try to change it now is ridiculous.

Father, son, holy spirit. I don't see "Mother" or any feminine quality in there. If they want to find feminism in "God", then they should convert to another religion.

Oh, and THANKS FOR DESTROYING A TON OF RELIGIONS THAT WORSHIPPED GODDESSES! :puke:

[JerseygirlCT]

5. Why is that ridiculous?

Everything evolves, even religions. The Christianity of 200 CE isn't the same at all as Christianity today. Heck, try to even decide what Christianity today consists of -- you'd likely be stifled by the huge variety in practice and theology.

If you believe that a religion consists of a sort of static set of rules and regulations, then perhaps I can see where you get your belief. If however you think of religion -- any particular one -- as a quest for the divine, as a tool by which to understand ourselves and our relationship with God, and as a means by which to share that quest with others... well then change is all part of the picture.

For Christians it will always come back to the genuine Christ. What would Jesus do about women? A male perception of God stems from the men who wrote about Jesus, the men who decided which writings were important and to be saved as sacred, the men who've shaped the faith over the years. Long past time the feminine was re-introduced.

Think of it this way: the male side of God could be seen as the idea of power and control -- authority. The female side as creativity. Both are needed for balance, yes?

[manic expression]

6. Why?

Because Christianity is, by definition, a religion that honors the masculine above the feminine. To ignore not only the way it has been for thousands of years, today included, but also the dogma itself is quite ridiculous.

Religions change, but if Christians want to start worshipping a feminine aspect of "God", then they'll have to change religions entirely. Last I checked, father, son and holy spirit didn't include a woman. If you can provide me with a passage that even suggests a goddess, then maybe you have a point, but until then, I think it is ridiculous for this sort of thing to happen.

Why is it ridiculous exactly? It is not only ridiculous because of the reasons I have mentioned above, it is also hypocritical to the highest degree. These fools are in the same religion that recently destroyed the religions of Africa, religions that worshipped GODDESSES. They've been trying the same with India, but thank goddess the missionaries haven't succeeded.

"For Christians it will always come back to the genuine Christ. What would Jesus do about women?"

Fine. What did Jesus say when he was on the cross? Was it: "Mother, you have forsaken me!"? No, it wasn't.

Of course both sides are needed for balance. However, that basic balance is something explicitly missing from Christian doctrine, something that can never be changed by some meaningless and empty gesture. This is like an Imam spinning around and saying, "Yeah, that whole idol thing, that's just fine after all!".

[JerseygirlCT]

7. You're rather making my point

You said:
"Fine. What did Jesus say when he was on the cross? Was it: "Mother, you have forsaken me!"? No, it wasn't"

What we have of Jesus' words and teachings are what the boys wrote and decided to keep. Notice the gospel of Mary Magdalene isn't there...

That doesn't prevent one from using what we have to get at the basic lessons. And absolutely nothing we have from our records of Jesus' teachings requires women to take a secondary place. Nothing. In God there is no male or female. In Christianity, using "father" is about language, not theology. God is not male or female -- God is well beyond gender.

We have most certainly over-emphasized the male aspects of God over the years. No disagreement there. But to say that isn't to say -- just throw the whole thing out then.

I'm not sure what "definition" you're working on here. Traditions, cultural, religious, are all wrapped up together in the west. That's an indictment of an entire culture, not just its religion.

You've obviously just got a beef with Christianity that you feel a need to hang on to, so I'm not even sure why I bothered to respond. Enjoy it.

[manic expression]

8. Which one would that be?

Mary Magdalene's gospel isn't in the Bible. You can give me excuses for why this is all day, but it doesn't change the fact that Christians felt a woman's words were unnecessary. Secondly, even if it was, the Judeo-Christian mindset does not recognize feminism as "God". How would this missing gospel change this fact?

"And absolutely nothing we have from our records of Jesus' teachings requires women to take a secondary place."

We have no real records of Jesus at all, so you're going down a bad road if you want to talk about records. There are quite a few inconsistencies in the story of the crucifixion alone, not to mention the rest of his life. Anyway, how does this explain why Jesus said "father" instead of "mother" in many instances? If you want to say he said both, or the other, and was changed by his followers later (if it even happened), that is still what Christianity teaches (making it what Christianity is). Oh, and I don't recall a woman being a disciple, even though they were as dedicated as the men...why is this? Also, do you believe in the story of Adam and Eve? If so, please explain how that does not put a woman in a secondary place. I could come up with endless examples.

In just about every image of the trinity or god in Christian art, it is a male. How could a non-male father a son through a woman? At every turn, the masculine is celebrated and revered, while the feminine is not done on the same level. You have not overemphasized anything, because God has been treated exclusively as a male for 2,000 years, and to turn around and wish it was different is nothing short of ridiculous. Mary Magdalene and the Virgin have been the highest place feminism has been granted, and even then, one was celebrated simply for not having sex.

The religion of Christianity is an entity that can be separated from most of the cultural developments of Europe. This is obvious in the fact that most governments have become very secular. Even when it is "intertwined", cultural change can do little to alter a book that was written thousands of years ago, a book that is the basis of a religion.

I do have a problem with Christianity, one part of this being that feminism is not treated equally to masculinity. I will hang on to it, because your arguments are certainly not close to showing otherwise.

Also, what do you think about Christianity destroying religions which worshiped goddesses? It happened in Europe, it happened in the Americas, it happened in Africa, it happened in Polynesia and it almost happened in India. That is the most disgusting crime against feminism in religion that I can think of.