(no subject)
Mar. 21st, 2003 11:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaJust posted this in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-03-24 06:39 am (UTC)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.