Shouldn't Christians pray to...

[ClassWarrior]

..."The Parent, The Son, and The Holy Spirit?"

Sure, Jesus is a son - he took the form of a male human being. But we all know that God is much bigger than the concept of gender. So why should Christians invoke the Lakoffian "Strict Father" frame when referring to God? Shouldn't he be "God The Parent," not "God The Father?"

(For reference on "Strict Father" ideology, see http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/nationasfamily/sfworldview)

NGU.

[Sapere aude]

1. Golly! You're going to hell for that!

[darkmaestro019]

2. let us make in our image..............(nt)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Interesting question

The answer might depend upon how reliant the particular individual or church is on dogma. I know that if you check out the Aramaic for the first line of the Lord's Prayer ("Our Father, who art in heaven"), there is no word designating the One as masculine.

For my money, the thing that is most important is the teaching of Christ. If you wish to say Parent instead of Father, hey, it's ok with me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. Really? I thought it uses 'abba'

which everyone says is Aramaic for 'father', as opposed to 'amma' for 'mother'.

Whether Aramaic had a gender neutral word for 'parent', I don't know. It might not have been feasible to avoid assigning a gender.

[Igel]

4. Analogy.

The NT has a lot of it. So does the OT.

Christ, the elder brother (with all that entailed at the time); the church, Xians in the aggregate, is his bride, in one set of metaphors and analogies. In another set, the church is the metaphorical mother of Xians, paired with the Father.

Now, just looking at my family--wife's an atheist, I've been unchurched for the last 15 years--I understand the analogy reasonably well. Like it or not, biology does matter a bit in child rearing--not for every mother or father, but on the whole, it does. And that's after birth and nursing. At least it holds strongly for new tenure-track faculty, mostly in the humanities and social sciences--and we know how republican and regressive *that* group is.

Jesus may have been born male, but my church taught that after the resurrection people are neither male nor female. We're talking purely social and family roles here.

As for the 'strict father' versus 'nurturant parent' business, it's been a long time since I've seen such blatant stereotyping of family roles, with such a stark division into two sides with the middle carefully excluded (a division seldom seen, in my experience). To build a theory on data so out of line with observation, well ... I'd rather not use the 'f' word. Then to assume that use of the theory's terminology has some sort of consequence in reality ... far too Whorfian for me.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Ah, but there is no middle...

There is "biconceptualism." Go here and download Chapter 2 for an explanation:

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints

As a matter of fact, download the whole thing, or pick it up at your local independent bookseller. It's excellent.

NGU.

[Igel]

14. I've piddled with theories that exclude middles, as well.

They've had their uses, and sometimes there's not a better theory--to ignore the theory simply lands you in a puddle of disconnected facts. While I love wallowing in data, it's really the patterns and connections between them that I'm after most of the time.

In the late 1800s physicists dealt with the 'ultraviolet catastrophe'; they had two equations that covered two parts of the EM spectrum but not the entire spectrum. They were wise enough to realize that there was a problem and try to fix it. One physicist finally did.

My favorite linguistic formalism excludes part of the data. Unlike the physicists, they've improved in wisdom by declaring it a point of honor to exclude part of the data: It's *good* not to account for all the data, and fallacy is apparently now virtue for that group of formalists; that's an overstatement, because most of the formalists think about as I do. Not all think that way, including some prominent formal linguists; that group rather sets science on its ear. Fortunately, we're talking linguistics, and what they think doesn't matter in any real way.

I like my formalism because it has some predictive value, and has components of the theory that can be tested. When they fail--as they frequently do--then it can be tweaked. But I know never to ask it questions that it's not designed for. And I also know that the theory is built on a fallacy.

May I suggest that the writer of what you referred me to would make a truly pre-eminent formal linguist?

[papau]

6. So a discussion of how people vote implies how they think about religion-interesting-but not logical

As to biconceptual:

The idea is that folks do not include much in the way of "moderate positions".

Folks have both liberal and conservative political positions, but on different issues - they are biconceptual

From the article:

"...the biconceptual theory assumes that people vote according to the Wirthlin theory (see Chapter 1): on the basis of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity with issues used symbolically to reflect values. Progressives can do the same. They can talk to the center the same way they talk to their base, and activate progressive values and frames in biconceptual swing voters. This keeps the progressive base and activates the progressive values of not just conservatives who are partial progressives but also biconceptuals who are undecided. In short, they can effectively go after the voters in the middle without giving up their progressive values."

[ClassWarrior]

7. No, people's worldviews imply how they vote...

...think about religion, and much more, I'm sure.

NGU.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. I'd say "creator" instead of father -- and often do, in my own

prayers.

[papau]

9. I do likewise in my mind - but as in Plato's cave - each must interpret the shadows he sees n/t

n/t

[Brentos]

10. Father.

God is gender neutral in the original, so that is how I see Him. The early male-dominated society translated it to the neutral Him, as "Her" was out of the questions in a patriarchal society, and "It" probably seemed a bit sacrilegious! :-)

So, I still say "Father" as I understand that it means "Creator, God, Yahweh, etc." and I like the sound of it.

[raccoon]

12. So was Robin Hood.

"Sure, Jesus is a son - he took the form of a male human being."

What I'm saying is, that's if you believe Jesus really existed.

Whether or not he was myth (I believe he was), it's impossible to imagine a female messiah at that time and place.

[bryant69]

13. I suppose it depends on whether or not you believe God has a Gender

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[struggle4progress]

15. The gospels, Hawaiian style (Honolulu Star Bulletin)

Saturday, March 8, 2003

... St. Andrew's Cathedral Dean Ann McElligott, a Midwesterner with recent experience in Australia, tapped Chun's expertise as soon as she arrived last year and makes a sincere effort along the same lines. She said she is delighted with the fact that the Hawaiian language is not gender specific: "We invoke the Parent, the Child and the Holy Spirit. I love that!" ...

http://starbulletin.com/2003/03/08/features/story1.html

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. What about the plural gods?

What about the part in Genesis that refers to "elohim" which means "Gods" not A God??? Hmmm???

Besides, the Ten C's say "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me". It doesn't say you can't worship other gods too, it just says none of them can be above the one in the Ten C's.

Read "Letters from the Earth" by Mark Twain for further details.