(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

[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.