(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.

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

I tend to use the gender neutral *Divinity*

[herbalgrrl.livejournal.com]

I also like it because it's non anthropomorphic

[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"

[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.

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.

[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.

[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!

[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.