(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

[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.