p0lar_bear Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:08 PM']You have yet to reply to the main point of my previous post. Namely, the fact that the apophatic nature of divine language necessitates that we always use the terms which are [i]most[/i] fitting, and always avoid terms which are not the most fitting. Thus, we can never refer to God as feminine, but rather, we can only say that feminimity images a power of God. [right][snapback]642098[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What if "most fitting" includes both? I think it is most fitting to refer to God as transcending gender. Therefore, both masculine and feminine can image God Himself, not just certain powers of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 12:55 PM']Semperviva, I found the whole "data" element of our discussion to be rather pointless, because I was only using the term in order to indicate that public revelation had ceased, and that there will be no new things added to the deposit of faith. Besides, where do you think I learned to use that word? You guessed it, from Cardinal Ratzinger. Of course the word can be misused, but it is possible to misuse any word. God bless, Todd [right][snapback]642077[/snapback][/right] [/quote] oh yes, i simply meant that ideas and words sincerely manifest themselves in our position before God and that use of solely technical terms, (inthe context you had every right to do so for the sake of clarity) could imply a position before God that is not condusive to a loving relationship....you see? i meant merely that one should only use such definitive languague when you absolutely have to, because one can define God and discuss God and argue about God ones whole life and still not know HIm, you see? i was just worried about that Todd... (sorry again about the sarcasm it just comes out when i'm arguing, usually i say it jokingly so sorry that can breed misunderstanding online) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:11 PM']What if "most fitting" includes both? I think it is most fitting to refer to God as transcending gender. Therefore, both masculine and feminine can image God Himself, not just certain powers of God. [right][snapback]642106[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The fact that God transcends gender does not need to be made "extra" clear, because it would simply be a re-statement of the already understood fact that theological language is apophatic. The above would logically mean that I should not refer to God as Good, but rather, as transcending Good. While the statement is true, it is unnecessary. As I said above it is understood that theological language is apophatic. Moreover, we can justifiably call God Father because, as I said previously, masculinity pertains to theology of Headship and being the highest in the Order of Authority. Refering to "God's feminimity" or, worse "God the Mother" in a non-mystical way is totally improper and unfitting, because it would attribute to God a subordination in the Order of Authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 (edited) [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:11 PM']What if "most fitting" includes both? I think it is most fitting to refer to God as transcending gender. Therefore, both masculine and feminine can image God Himself, not just certain powers of God. [right][snapback]642106[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Gimme a break! Do you want to refer to God as He/She? It? Heavenly Mother/Father? Parent? What horrors feminism has visited upon us! Some rad feminists already have crucified female Jesuses and the the like! We have absolutely no reason to reject the revealed language God used tyo refer to Himself in order to satisfy the demands of modern feminists (who will never be satiisfied anyway.) No good will come of this nonsense. This is just political correctness trumping Divine Truth. Edited July 13, 2005 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 11:12 AM']oh yes, i simply meant that ideas and words sincerely manifest themselves in our position before God and that use of solely technical terms, (inthe context you had every right to do so for the sake of clarity) could imply a position before God that is not condusive to a loving relationship....you see? i meant merely that one should only use such definitive languague when you absolutely have to, because one can define God and discuss God and argue about God ones whole life and still not know HIm, you see? i was just worried about that Todd... (sorry again about the sarcasm it just comes out when i'm arguing, usually i say it jokingly so sorry that can breed misunderstanding online) [right][snapback]642108[/snapback][/right] [/quote] As you know I'm Byzantine Catholic and the whole focus of Byzantine theology is on the persons (hypostases) of the Trinity, and on establishing communion with them through the divine energies. Revelation is about the hypostases of God, but that doesn't mean that it is devoid of objective content. It is personal, but it also contains "facts," i.e., revealed events and other realities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:08 PM']You have yet to reply to the main point of my previous post. Namely, the fact that the apophatic nature of divine language necessitates that we always use the terms which are [i]most[/i] fitting, and always avoid terms which are not the most fitting. Thus, we can never refer to God as feminine, but rather, we can only say that feminimity images a power of God. [right][snapback]642098[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yes what you are saying is exactly what i am trying to say- i agree- i am trying to say[i] not[/i] that we should reference God in feminine terms in the science of God (lol, hence terms like data ) but that we should be familiar with the fact that femininity [i]does image [/i]a power of God...and that we cannot exclude this truth because exclusion= not full truth......in understanding God, Father and such is sufficient...i agree....but why must one always STOP with terminolgy.....God is understood better by terminology but he is not terminology, he transcends it is all i mean.......God is God and we find him in loving Him not defining him. Perhaps, if we love Him, we can efine him a little....but we can define him when we have Him, and know Him, other wise we speak of that which we do not know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 While it is true that masculinity and femininity image God, paradoxically God is beyond all categories and determinations and so He is utterly unlike His creation in essence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:18 PM']Gimme a break! Do you want to refer to God as He/She? It? Heavenly Mother/Father? Parent? What horrors feminism has visited upon us! Some rad feminists already have crucified female Jesuses and the the like! We have absolutely no reason to reject the revealed language God used tyo refer to Himself in order to satisfy the demands of modern feminists (who will never be satiisfied anyway.) No good will come of this nonsense. This is just political correctness trumping Divine Truth. [right][snapback]642114[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Read my first post in this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:18 PM']As you know I'm Byzantine Catholic and the whole focus of Byzantine theology is on the persons (hypostases) of the Trinity, and on establishing communion with them through the divine energies. Revelation is about the hypostases of God, but that doesn't mean that it is devoid of objective content. It is personal, but it also contains "facts," i.e., revealed events and other realities. [right][snapback]642115[/snapback][/right] [/quote] do u understand i meant no uncharity but charity intended and gone wrong lol.....yes....ok... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:21 PM']yes what you are saying is exactly what i am trying to say- i agree- i am trying to say[i] not[/i] that we should reference God in feminine terms in the science of God (lol, hence terms like data ) but that we should be familiar with the fact that femininity [i]does image [/i]a power of God...and that we cannot exclude this truth because exclusion= not full truth......in understanding God, Father and such is sufficient...i agree....but why must one always STOP with terminolgy.....God is understood better by terminology but he is not terminology, he transcends it is all i mean.......God is God and we find him in loving Him not defining him. Perhaps, if we love Him, we can efine him a little....but we can define him when we have Him, and know Him, other wise we speak of that which we do not know... [right][snapback]642118[/snapback][/right] [/quote] If you agree that feminimity cannot be attributed to any of the Persons of the Trinity, or to the Triune Godhead, then we agree. I concur that what we acknowledge as feminimity does mirror a power of God (the power to create, sustain, etc). I simply urge that we do not let this get to our heads, and motivate us to start speaking of God in the feminine. I agree that God transcends terminology, but I hold that this truth simply binds [i]us[/i] to terminology all the more. If nothing we say will ever be totally accurate, then we must guard ourselves with the gravest seriousness from speaking in a way that will lead to deep mistakes and innaccuracies concerning God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 13 2005, 11:25 AM']do u understand i meant no uncharity but charity intended and gone wrong lol.....yes....ok... [right][snapback]642125[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, I understood that, but I was simply clarifying my position. Moreover, I agree with you, a person can study theology all his life and not know God. Theology is experiential, not definitional or conceptual. Definitions are only used by the Church in order to exclude certain ways of speaking about God, i.e., heretical ways. But the definition given by the Magisterium does not exhaust God, because nothing can do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:11 PM']I'm not saying that the East does, but if we follow your path, I can tell you this, the Eastern Orthodox will never be in communion with the Pope. [right][snapback]642105[/snapback][/right] [/quote] According to that thinking we should deny the filioque and the Immaculate Conception, papal supremacy, etc.... [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 13 2005, 03:11 PM']One other note, as I'm sure you are already aware, the Magisterium does not "create" the tradition. Instead, it is the guardian of tradition, therefore it must pass on what has been revealed, and not play with it until it fits the modern sensibilities of Western secular culture. [right][snapback]642105[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Todd, I know you are very intelligent, but that doesn't mean that anyone who is not you is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 (edited) [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2005, 01:24 PM']Read my first post in this thread [right][snapback]642122[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Still disagree with you. Poetically personalizing an attribute of God (wisdom) as feminine is not the same as referring to God Himself as feminine. The Scott Hahn thing was delt with before and is actually a misquote (He does not actually say that the Holy Spirit is feminine). And referring to Christ as feminine is just wrong! We work too hard to appease the feminists, while at the same time driving men from the Church. How many men want to follow a feminine Christ or an androgynous God? Edited July 13, 2005 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 [quote name='p0lar_bear' date='Jul 13 2005, 11:29 AM']According to that thinking we should deny the filioque and the Immaculate Conception, papal supremacy, etc.... Todd, I know you are very intelligent, but that doesn't mean that anyone who is not you is an idiot. [right][snapback]642132[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I hate to be the one to point this out, but the Vatican has already partially vitiated the doctrine of the [i]filioque[/i] in the 1995 clarification that it issued. It moved closer to the Eastern position which holds that the Father alone is the cause of the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I have other things to do, I might come back to this later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now