tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post2008415745983912094..comments2023-05-14T03:03:09.451-05:00Comments on Female Impersonator: Gendered language and Early Christian thinkers - pt 2.Ameliahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10884754298018500343noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post-80645263114785211462009-01-22T09:03:00.000-06:002009-01-22T09:03:00.000-06:00I hope you continue to monitor this post, but I th...I hope you continue to monitor this post, but I think it's important.<BR/><BR/>I come at it from a straight (sorry: no pun intended) orthodox position, and I fight with people all the time about this issue -- some of them my closest friends. And I think the issue roots in a fundamental disagreement about what is at stake: For me, "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" are not metaphors that can be tossed out, but they are the revealed Names of God the "Trinity." They, of course, have metaphoric overtones and meaning -- especially in the extent to which they posit a relational character to the Godhead (what a hiddeous term) rather than a kind of Greek philosophical staticism.<BR/><BR/>The human problem (perhaps "The" original sin) is that we try make ourselves the dominatrices of the universe: We want things to comport with our view of reality. Thus, if "father" is a male figure in our heads, then "Father" is an inadequate "image" for God. Yet, Jesus himself called on us to call the One who sent him and to Whom he had recourse in his hope "Father" -- not "like-father".<BR/><BR/>Part of the metanoia of Christian faith (we can't require it of any other faith tradition, of course) is the "Breaking" of our images, thought-patterns, "paradigms," and the like on the reality of Christ -- following him, not as a springboard for our speculation, but as the molder of hearts, souls, minds, and strengths.<BR/><BR/>On the de-genderizing of language, then, I raise one question: Which member of the Trinity is not "creator" (as I read Genesis 1, they all are) or "redeemer" (what did Jesus do that God was not involved in, e.g.) or "sustainer." The danger of Modalism is that it posits a different God from the one we claim in the Name of Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>Keep thinking, people, but don't let your thoughts be untied from the Great Tradition.<BR/><BR/>DwightPDwight P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15849665963994688905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post-6301263773322840962008-12-22T11:27:00.000-06:002008-12-22T11:27:00.000-06:00For every God as Lord, we should incorporate God t...<I>For every God as Lord, we should incorporate God the servant.</I><BR/><BR/>I think in my understanding, the "servanthood" aspect of the Godhead is encompassed by Christ, while the "Lordhood" aspect is encompassed by YHWH.<BR/><BR/>In terms of your question re: "imago dei" and "imago christi", I have been fond of talking about "The 6 billion faces of God" both to express this idea, and also to suggest that God's interactions with His/Her/It's/Their (a pronoun for a deity that is many-in-one and one-in-many, and all genders, is hard to pick!) people, has to be essentially individual - God will have a different "appearance" depending on to whom God is communicating. The Prophets in the OT strike me as a classic example: Ezekiel, a very ritual-based man, receives visions and messages couched in very ritualistic styles; Jeremiah's messages are in tune with Jeremiah's own personality, and so on.<BR/><BR/>This, of course, feeds back to your point about needing to use more than one metaphor, more than one angle of view, to appreciate the wonder of the Godhead, of the Lord and of the Christ.<BR/><BR/>Since God is infinite, and we are but a finite part of His(etc) Creation, for us to comprehend the totality of God's splendour is impossible, just as it's impossible to know the exact and true value of π.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post-85948536063149875512008-12-21T23:17:00.000-06:002008-12-21T23:17:00.000-06:00Thanks for all the hard work you do anyway!Thanks for all the hard work you do anyway!lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13285797515594923013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post-82472975125992856052008-12-21T14:58:00.000-06:002008-12-21T14:58:00.000-06:00Hey Lindsay, I keep commenting because I find myse...Hey Lindsay, I keep commenting because I find myself having to moderate inappropriate comments on your well-written posts. <BR/><BR/>Mike seems to be coming out as a bit of a troll (using words like "feminazi's", "pathetic", and "pitiful." I wonder if he's someone who has commented here under a different name...Ameliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10884754298018500343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post-79131887950545407552008-12-20T21:43:00.000-06:002008-12-20T21:43:00.000-06:00I rejected one of Mike's comments because of his r...I rejected one of Mike's comments because of his repeated use of loaded terms that I did not feel comfortable with. <BR/><BR/>If he reads this again, I suggest to him to re-state his argument without resorting to commenting on the poster. <BR/><BR/>Just a head's up.Ameliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10884754298018500343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6730657139931062421.post-45875145978921529882008-12-20T14:59:00.000-06:002008-12-20T14:59:00.000-06:00Great post, Lindsay. I think you did a great job a...Great post, Lindsay. I think you did a great job addressing this issue in both your posts. I hope people who were dissatisfied with your last one come back to read this.Ameliahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10884754298018500343noreply@blogger.com