Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Presbyterians allow experimenting with alt. to 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 09:11 AM
Original message
Presbyterians allow experimenting with alt. to 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost
The divine Trinity "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.

"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.

The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.
(snip - other options to father, son, holy ghost at the link)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-06-19-presby...

rock, redeemer, friend???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. self delete
Edited on Tue Jun-20-06 09:17 AM by unhappycamper
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. Rock, paper, scissors?
Edited on Tue Jun-20-06 09:28 AM by CrispyQGirl
;)

Overall, I think this is a good idea. During my short lived religious phase, I definitely had issues with the fact that G-d is of neither sex yet we always refer to G-d as male. I thought it was a shortcoming that we never came up with a unique personal pronoun specifically for G-d.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Yes, the Trinity's "maleness" - why not Parent, Child, Holy Spirit then?
The Presbyterians were trying to avoid gender specific language so I don't understand why they didn't use the obvious Parent, Child (Off-spring?), Holy Spirit.

They obviously didn't like "holy spirit" for some reason though - not sure what the issue was there; obviously not gender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Where's the windex?
Oh my. Best laugh all week.

But MOTHER CHILD AND WOMB? I don't think I could say that with a straight face.

Although "Holy Ghost" is, in and of itself, pretty funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. What, the Trinity isn't believable anymore?

The son of God is the same as the son of man; the son of man is the same as the son of God. God, the father, is the same as Christ, the son; Christ, the son, is the same as God, the father. This language may appear confused to unbelievers, but Christians will readily understand it.
-- Voltaire



Every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of god.
-- Thomas Jefferson

His religion was demonism. If ever a man worshiped a false god, he did. The being described in his five points is ... a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious, attributes of Calvin.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
-- Thomas Jefferson

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson


Jefferson would probably have had a chuckle over this. This is of course a good thing, reflecting the metamorphosis of religion away from the more unbelievable claims. Eventually, the Bible will be considered a book of myths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. How about
The Boss, The new Kids on the Block, and the Grateful Dead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-20-06 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. My Invisible Friend, His Invisible Daddy, and The Super-Spook? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
manic expression Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. This is just pathetic
If these people don't like the way their religion has consistently regarded the trinity for thousands of years...they should leave it. Changing it now to meet their sensibilities is dishonest, contrary to their very dogma and revisionist. I guess they want to cling onto a religion they don't even find appealing, so they just put a petty label over something they don't like even if it is going back on their own religion so that they can convince themselves that their faith isn't what it is.

Just pathetic.

What's next? Tree, acorn, grass? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. A minor correction
according to my sources the concept of the Trinity was established by the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD not "thousands of years" ago.

Perhaps the Presbyterians are just trying to get back to the original view of God in Mark 12:29 "The Lord our God is one Lord"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
manic expression Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. You'll need to forgive my hyperbole
But my main point stands. The fact that Christianity has regarded "God" as male for quite some time (this time an understatement) doesn't change. The fact that Christianity inherently places masculinity far above femininity cannot be changed (Adam before Eve, who sinned first and more). The fact that Christianity has never put femininity on any high pedestal (and Mary is celebrated because she was supposedly a virgin mother, something that is impossible and in defiance of femininity itself) is also unavoidable. All this and more shows that what these people are trying to do is simply ridiculous.

Also, most of what Christianity is was established at the early Christian councils. That IS Christianity, and anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves.

Mark 12:29 proves nothing. IMO, it is meaningless in this context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Of course I will forgive hyperbole!
But when you state unequivocally that "That IS Christianity, and anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves." you seem to deny anyone else the right to determine for themselves what Christianity is. That is not hyperbole, that is arrogance. It implies that there were no Christians before the "early Christian councils" and that anyone who goes back to the roots of Christianity is "fooling themselves". That seems to me to be a pretty bizarre concept since the founder of Christianity came 300 yrs. before the "early Christian councils" and he (Jesus) had a lot to do with the determination of what Christianity is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
manic expression Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Thanks
However, a dogma is a dogma, and it is not something that people can just change if it's something they don't completely agree with. It is simply mistaken to claim that people are allowed to determine what an established religion is, because that religion has already been defined quite extensively. People can't just make stuff up so that they can rationalize a faith to themselves. If they try to, that is in blatant disregard for that very faith, and in defiance of what it actually is.

It's not arrogance to observe what any dogma has been, is and will always be. It's not arrogance to object to people spinning around 1,700 years later and saying that their religion is something else when it clearly is not (for the reasons I listed).

There were Christians before the early Christian councils, but that does not mean they didn't regard femininity any better than afterwards. The basic tenets of Christianity remain the same, and that is decidedly in complete favor of masculinity, and the trinity reflects that fundamental belief. Those councils did not establish or originate the Christian mindset, they echoed it. If you want to go to the "roots of Christianity", you should start by recognizing that there is little to nothing known of the original writings, and next by recognizing that the first Christians didn't even want gentiles in their movement, and next by seeing that the first Christians hated other religions, and next by...you get my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmik debris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Well, I'm not a Christian so I won't pursue this, but
People like Calvin, Locke, and Luther, disagree with you on the static nature of Christian dogma. And I assume you disagree with them. Amen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
manic expression Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. OK, but
the reformers you mention disagreed on how the prevelant establishment was going about the dogma, not the dogma itself. Luther, for example, thought there was too much in the way between an individual Christian and "God" due to the Catholic Church's rites, not that "God" was a rock or a mother or something, so it's quite different IMO. That's why I don't think you can compare those reforms with what these people are trying to do.

Anyway, it's just my opinion. Thanks for the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-21-06 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
13. We did the inclusive language in
our church a while back. It pretty much bombed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 27th 2014, 08:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC