The Spiritual Crisis in America

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Just some Western "church" thangs...

U.S. Episcopal diocese votes to stop using masculine pronouns for God | News | LifeSite

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 1:22-25 KJV

[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. [24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Just some Western "church" thangs...

U.S. Episcopal diocese votes to stop using masculine pronouns for God | News | LifeSite

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Romans 1:22-25 KJV

Do you think a god entity would have need for distinctions such as male and female? Seems like the humans would be the ones getting most bent out of shape over this. Why would a truly omnipotent, omniscient being who transcends all physical matter care?

This question is directed at both those who would consider God male and those who would consider God female.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Do you think a god entity would have need for distinctions such as male and female? Seems like the humans would be the ones getting most bent out of shape over this. Why would a truly omnipotent, omniscient being who transcends all physical matter care?

Are they really just going to ignore God’s preferred pronoun?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Are they really just going to ignore God’s preferred pronoun?

It seems a trivial matter regardless of which side one takes. And why do we assume God would prefer that pronoun?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It seems a trivial matter regardless of which side one takes. And why do we assume God would prefer that pronoun?

I know right?

As to your question: It is our Tradition.

This is an in-house issue.

While God is not literally gendered (except of course the incarnate Savior,) He has chosen in both Scripture and Tradition to be referred to by masculine pronouns. To claim for ourselves the right to change this is extreme arrogance. This is what progressive Christianity devolves into, a build your own god cult.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I know right?

As to your question: It is our Tradition.

This is an in-house issue.

While God is not literally gendered (except of course the incarnate Savior,) He has chosen in both Scripture and Tradition to be referred to by masculine pronouns. To claim for ourselves the right to change this is extreme arrogance. This is what progressive Christianity devolves into, a build your own god cult.

I understand the part about tradition, but the scriptures, these were transcribed by mortal men. How can anyone be certain God really intended to be represented by any pronouns?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I understand the part about tradition, but the scriptures, these were transcribed by mortal men. How can anyone be certain God really intended to be represented by any pronouns?

And how can anyone be certain God really intended not to be represented by any pronouns?

Christ calls Him "Father" and that's good enough for me.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

And how can anyone be certain God really intended not to be represented by any pronouns?

Exactly. It seems like a trivial matter. I'm not saying you're wrong in calling out that progressive church. I think they're making it a trivial matter as well.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Exactly. It seems like a trivial matter. I'm not saying you're wrong in calling out that progressive church. I think they're making it a trivial matter as well.

Like I said, just another product of the Reformation.

God is not male, He's not a man. While scripture and revelation express God as Father, a masculine nature, God is Father but isn't masculine as humans may understand masculinity. Even then, what about the feminine expressions of God in the Old Testament? Where He is described as groaning in labor, birthing Israel? Or called a mother eagle? One can argue the Shekinah, the Glory of God, can be viewed in feminine aspects.

Even Jesus Christ, God the Son, who DID take on humanity as a male, refers to Himself as a mother hen in the Gospel, "gathering her chicks under her wings."

My issue with this Episcopal diocese' move is more that it can overly-abstract and muddy up clear and strong language of the Trinity and the nature of God, all as a part of following modernist trends and understandings. Very much so being blown around by the winds of the times rather than anchored on the eternal Gospel. That's my issue with this and THAT'S the problem here, rather than being offended by it because of an overly anthropomorphic hyper-masculine old-man-with-beard understanding of God when He is refered to as Father or He/Him.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What are your thoughts on Gnosticism?

Have you read any of the gnostic gospels? Do you think they're false scriptures or do you think they were just left out of canon due to the machinations of the early church?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I read the Gospel of Thomas and it vibed similarly to the Gospel of John. Very poetic, mystical language, quite different from the synoptic gospels

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

What are your thoughts on Gnosticism?

It's one of the earliest heresies of the Church. I dabbled in Christian Gnosticism for a time before letting it go. Gnosticism is itself a presupposition. So, there's Christian Gnosticism, Pagan Gnosticism, Hindu Gnosticism, etc. to a lesser extent. It takes the basic tenets of a religion and imposes it's own presuppositions to it.

So, there are basic concepts to Gnosticism like the "Demiurge" or "Monad" and whatever, and when you apply those concepts to Christianity, God turns into the Demiurge, Satan turns into an Archon, and so forth. As far as I understand it.

Have you read any of the gnostic gospels? Do you think they're false scriptures or do you think they were just left out of canon due to the machinations of the early church?

I have not. I've only read the talking points to it. It wasn't very compelling to me.

I assume it's making a comeback among the open-minded (on the Big 5) due to its novelty.

What lead me to Orthodoxy was actually an accidental find: Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition: Richard Smoley: 9781570628108: Amazon.com: Books which is available on audiobook.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's one of the earliest heresies of the Church. I dabbled in Christian Gnosticism for a time before letting it go. Gnosticism is itself a presupposition. So, there's Christian Gnosticism, Pagan Gnosticism, Hindu Gnosticism, etc. to a lesser extent. It takes the basic tenets of a religion and imposes it's own presuppositions to it.

So, there are basic concepts to Gnosticism like the "Demiurge" or "Monad" and whatever, and when you apply those concepts to Christianity, God turns into the Demiurge, Satan turns into an Archon, and so forth. As far as I understand it.



I have not. I've only read the talking points to it. It wasn't very compelling to me.

I assume it's making a comeback among the open-minded (on the Big 5) due to its novelty.

What lead me to Orthodoxy was actually an accidental find: Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition: Richard Smoley: 9781570628108: Amazon.com: Books which is available on audiobook.

You're right about presuppositions. But couldn't the same be said about any 'canonical' texts in any religion?

 

[Lark]

Sometimes I think bible christians should just be more well read, there's more than the one book in the world.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

You're right about presuppositions. But couldn't the same be said about any 'canonical' texts in any religion?

Yes, but everything in this world operates under presuppositions. Yours seems to be that of a Seeker, at the moment.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

 

[Coriolis]

You're right about presuppositions. But couldn't the same be said about any 'canonical' texts in any religion?

Just so, and any attempt to provide "evidence" for their truth or validity is hopelessly circular.

At root, Gnosticism is the idea that each believer can and does have direct knowledge of God. All the rest is interpretation, embellishment, specific implementations of this philosophy.

I read the Gospel of Thomas and it vibed similarly to the Gospel of John. Very poetic, mystical language, quite different from the synoptic gospels

Have you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, or the old Sayings Gospel? It amazes me that anyone who claims to follow Jesus wouldn't want to read all they can about him, rather than accepting uncritically the cherry-picking of source material done almost 2 millennia ago by a bunch of men with strongly political agendas.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Have a great weekend, [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION].

 

[Typh0n]

At root, Gnosticism is the idea that each believer can and does have direct knowledge of God. All the rest is interpretation, embellishment, specific implementations of this philosophy.

Not really.

Gnosticism views knowledge of "God" as something a select few can acheive, not each and every believer.

They also viewed the universe as evil, its creator (YHVW) as evil and "God" as being the invisible spirit which was innacessible except for the elect who, through certain formulas could escape the physical universe. Note that YHVW is not the invisible spirit, he is a demiurge. They also viewed Jesus as a being who had no body and that could lead the elect back to the invisible spirit.

You gotta admit this is very, very different from what mainstream Christians believe, regardless of what you believe.

Personally, I'm not a fan of gnosticism as it implies creation and action are evil as they perpetuate the cosmos.

 

[Coriolis]

Not really.

Gnosticism views knowledge of "God" as something a select few can acheive, not each and every believer.

They also viewed the universe as evil, its creator (YHVW) as evil and "God" as being the invisible spirit which was innacessible except for the elect who, through certain formulas could escape the physical universe. Note that YHVW is not the invisible spirit, he is a demiurge. They also viewed Jesus as a being who had no body and that could lead the elect back to the invisible spirit.

You gotta admit this is very, very different from what mainstream Christians believe, regardless of what you believe.

Personally, I'm not a fan of gnosticism as it implies creation and action are evil as they perpetuate the cosmos.

This view of the universe as evil was hardly universal among gnostics, nor was the exclusivity of the knowledge. The crux of the matter was that one didn't need sacred writings or the intercession of a cleric to know God, one could gain that knowledge within oneself. The discipline that took if nothing else probably did serve to limit how widespread the practice was.