(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

Just posted this in jesusliberation, but wanted to post it here for posterity.

There seems to be an unending debate in progressive and liberal religious circles over whether to use male, female, or non-gendered names when refering to God.

In a conversation going on in another forum, it was suggested that we should follow the example Jesus set, which was to use masculine terms of familiarity like "Daddy."

In my opinion, what was most distinctive about the way Jesus spoke about God was that it was designed to shock its listeners out of complacency regarding their conceptions and visualizations of God. Addressing God with the familiar term "Daddy" was, in its day, a far break from the various formal names of God used by Jewish mystics of that day (many of which have been enshrined in the Kabbalah).

If so, then we defy the point Jesus tried to make if we stick too closely to his way of addressing God. I personally prefer to replace "Father" with "Root of All," but I wonder what other terms or addresses we might use.

Comments

[hai-kah-uhk.livejournal.com]

I use "O" because it's circular. And it can be used as both a proper noun and a pronoun.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I guess "cool" would be a somewhat undignified response, but that was what first came out of my lips when I read that. Thank you for mentioning it; I may borrow it from time to time, but always with proper reference to you for mentioning it.

There's a connotation to that name that some might consider vulgar, but I do not; I think of it as an intriguing dimension.

[hai-kah-uhk.livejournal.com]

I think "cool" is a perfectly acceptable response, in light of the original entry. :)

And it's sweet of you to offer to give me credit, but that does seem to be defeating the purpose... the intention when talking about God-concepts is really that it's from yourself. To see labels as possessions rather than just means of communication... well, I'm not sure about that whole dynamic or where I fit into it. Besides, I borrowed the term from another source, although my reasons for using it are personal to me and may differ from the reasons of the people I adopted it from.

Vulgar shmulgar... one man's vulgar is another man's expression of a beautiful gift. Or woman's, for that matter. Maybe I should care more about people getting offended. But I can't stop them.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

I tend to use the gender neutral *Divinity*

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

I also like it because it's non anthropomorphic

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

You mean "Divinity?" I use that on occasion as well, or sometimes "Divine Presence" when I want to accentuate the closeness and immediacy of, well, divine presence. :)

Re:

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

I like that a lot!

[alobar.livejournal.com]

If Jesus's terminolgy was meant to shock, one could use "the divine pussy & cock conjoined", "my bro &/or sis who be in heaven"

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I suppose that would approach the level of indignity which "Daddy" must have had for listeners as a name for God in Jesus' day.

But does that really shock you? (What WOULD shock you?)

[alobar.livejournal.com]

What would shock me? Certainly nothing which huimans could say. I would be shocked to discover there was one central monotheistic god and theat he (or she, or it) actually talked to humans.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

LOL! In a way, that would actually shock me too.

[anarktikos.livejournal.com]

As I prefer to be as clinically descriptive as possible, especially as concerns metaphysics, I just generally go with "the absolute." I find such a term is the least conditioning and limiting of anything I could think of, and has the added virture of being transposable to philosophy where the need should arise.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I find I have a preference for terms that are somewhat technical but somewhat poetic or evocative as well. Although I readily see the benefit of terms that are not in themselves "conditioning," as in filling the mind with preconceptions which are ultimately counterproductive.

Names of God

[seraphimsigrist.livejournal.com]

I dont think that Abba is quite the same as daddy
which is familiar but also faintly silly isnt it?
Abhishiktananda(a Catholic priest and wise man) said
that the best prayer he knew was OM-ABBA expressing the
ground of Being and the intimate fatherhood of God.
But God has many names and each name is a way of access
and there can be and must be finally perhaps one particular
name for each person to discover as well as those which
are for all.
or so it seems to me...
+Seraphim.

Re: Names of God

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

which is familiar but also faintly silly isnt it?

Yes, I suppose "Dad" might be a little better than "Daddy." It must surely have seemed somewhat informal and perhaps silly to people accustomed to hearing God referred to using names like "Lord of Hosts" and "King of this world" and the like.

OM-Abba: I like that.


But God has many names and each name is a way of access
and there can be and must be finally perhaps one particular
name for each person to discover as well as those which
are for all.

That is an excellent point. The author of the Gospel of Truth wrote that when one obtains acquaintance it is like hearing your true and secret name spoken for the first time. It would not surprise me in the least if hearing one's own secret name corresponded with learning a new name of God...

[agent-of-karma.livejournal.com]

My sense of (G)od is an odd one, but I think any single or group of words tends to add definition to something that is incomprehensible. We human beasties like to try to understand the universe, sometimes we have to accept our ignorance however. That's not to put down anyone else's belief, just how I feel.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes. I'm tempted to use a cue from the deconstructionists and put a strike-out through the name of God whenever I type it, like this: God, to indicate that the word is meant as a simple arrow pointing at something else, to be itself overlooked as woefully inadequate.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

The original gods/goddesses of one's life are ones parents... If one is trying to emphasize a position of submission to and/or dependence on god, I think referring to him as "daddy" makes a lot of sense, after all, how many children actually refer to their parents as "father?"
Ok I shouldn't say that, because Aaron occassionally calls me 'mother" when he wants my attention for something important - but there is no denying my child is an odd duck!

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

That's a good point. I actually resist very strongly the notion that God is a parent, in the sense that God watches what we do and then scolds or rewards. I don't see the divine operating in that way at all... so I resist using titles for the Divine that imply parenthood or lordship.

[akaiyume.livejournal.com]

My spirituality is more or less rooted in gestalt theory, so in my case, what i call god is definitely non-gendered, or more specifically all-gendered. The exact phrase I use is "the all which is nothing and the nothing that is all."

Basically it stems from my beliefs that deity and creation can not exist independently from each other and that they influence and change each other on a continous basis. IMO diety is not a truly separate entity but rather the sum total expression of all existance, animate or inanimate, acting or not acting. Thus tne All which is Nothing. However this Nothing which while nothing in and of itself is expansive enough to encompass everything, and as such constantly influences and recreates the total sum of all existence (ergo, the Nothing which is All.)

In other words I believe there is no separate and true deity. Everything is god, nothing happens in isolation, every choice has a consequence which in some way, large or small, affects all of creation.This is why it is so important to constantly examine one's actions, faiures to act, thoughts and beliefs. I am sure a version of this exists for all things in nature even though it is beyond my comprehension to understand how so. That a seperate "over diety" doesn't exist does not free us from any responsibilities, but rather demands that we work continuously to create the world as we best see fit, since we are/create the "deity" that is/creates us.

Uhm, that is just my view. I do not claim to have answers.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Your thoughts are very astute -- thank you for sharing them!

My own experience of divine presense is similar to your own. I like to think of the boundary between the divine and the universe as a fractal -- it is impossible to examine a slice of Universe and split it into pieces that are divine or not. Despite not being able to point to "things" that are divine or things that are not divine, I still feel the existence of a divine presence apart from "simply nature."

My appraisal matches yours in many ways. As I perceive things, reality follows the "watercourse way;" events happen according to the path of least resistance. To me the divine is a bottomless well of potential which opens up "underneath" reality (in a conceptual sense); things exist or happen because they "fall" according to the contours of potential created by the divine. This is how I interpret what is written in the Tao Te Ching: "The way never acts, yet nothing is left undone" (chapter 37).


That a seperate "over diety" doesn't exist does not free us from any responsibilities, but rather demands that we work continuously to create the world as we best see fit, since we are/create the "deity" that is/creates us.

I agree strongly. My insights, such as they are, likewise imply that it is crucial to act ethically.