The Holy spirit is God's feminine nature, holy Mother

[dio9]

I have a new suggestion of the Trinity. God is our Father everyone can agree, Jesus is our savior and Son , but the holy spirit is nebulous , not clear as Father and Son. The HS is probably instead of holy spirit , holy Mother. Her characteristics as nurturer and comforter are what mothers do, Father Mother and Son make so much more sense than "holy spirit".
All creation reflects God and all creation is created nurtured and increased within the relationships of Father Mother and child. So the holy spirit is actually Holy Mother.

[William]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

If we want to call God dad and the Spirit mum I suppose there's nothing to stop us.

Yep. Regarding HG in the feminine isn't a blasphemy.

[marco]

[dio9]

[Replying to marco]

Mythologically necessary is not the right word, substantially evident is more like it. The image of God is Male and Female. Created by God in his image. If the image of God is a mirror image of Gods Character this implies God is Adam and Eve not just Adam. The Tao also presents this original image as Yang and Yin. The whole creation is created maintained and reproduces in the form of Male and Female. Rather than mythological it is empirically necessary .

[William]

[Replying to post 22 by marco]

Blasphemy depends on the church you're in. One can happily joke about some prophet in one area and make the same joke in another and your next of kin can prepare a funeral. Funny thing blasphemy.

Not 'funny ha-ha' either. But if you are saying that Christians in certain sectors will get on their high horses with flames and pitchforks to declare one a blasphemer for thinking the HG is a female, well that is just the kind of crazy world we live in. Fortunately no Christian on site has popped in to inform anyone that hell awaits those and their children for even thinking such a thing as a 'Mother'-GOD!

Regarding blasphemy against the Spirit, it is sad that there is no footnote to explain Christ's pronouncement:

Again, nothing unusual about that. Leave things half baked, will get them all arguing and pointing fingers...pitchforks sharpened, torches a-blazing.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

I don't know about the apocrypha. However, I do not see that mythology in the Tanakh either, though there is the cult of Judith, related to a rabbinic view that there was another woman before Havah(Eve).

And let us not forget Lilith.

Yes, I think I got the name wrong. I don't spend much time on that kind doctrine.

The Scriptures do not recognize husband and wife as equal, it recognizes them as complimentary. This might be where the analogy breaks down, but currently it doesn't appear to me that seeing Adonai and His people as complimentary causes any real problems. I'd have to see how that plays out.

"Complimentary" invokes the implication that one without the other is not WHOLE.

You may be inferring that, but I was not implying that at all. I also know of no one who sees that as implicit in the term. That which compliments praises or enhances. It does not indicate whether the complimentary items are separately whole or not. A grass catcher is complimentary to a lawn mower, but the lawn mower is whole without it.

Culturally speaking, wife and husband become ONE, and essentially therein is the compliment.

In that context that is correct.

Equality is essential to the health and balance of any relationship. Otherwise what have we here? An image of a GOD who creates a form in which he breaths an aspect of himself into and then falls in love with and even placing aside the sexual aspect of a marriage, this in itself doesn't somehow make it any more or less something of a desperate act wrought from a loneliness which even demons nor angels created could fill the void of - but somehow 'souls' which had gone through the experience of being biological, fit the bill?

That is not true. No relationship is equal. In every relationship one has skills and abilities that make it superior to the other and vice versa. That argument is romantic egalitariian tripe, that has no basis in relaity.

BUT, those souls are NEVER to be regarded by the husband as EQUAL? Just what kind of image of a GOD are we dealing with here? Smells like *sniff* - a classic case of paternal spirit. aka Patriarchism which is too [suspiciously] grounded in human culture to be anything other than human invention aka 'made in the image of human cultural preference'.

A 'god' but not really a GOD.

I can see how a romantic egalitarian could rationalize it that way, because that one would see patriachy as inherently bad. However, I do not see that in the Scriptures. In fact, that is why the Scriptures refer to Adonai as Abba. Using your logic, one could reject egalitarianism because it is grounded in modern western human culture.

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

Mythologically necessary is not the right word, substantially evident is more like it. The image of God is Male and Female. Created by God in his image. If the image of God is a mirror image of Gods Character this implies God is Adam and Eve not just Adam. The Tao also presents this original image as Yang and Yin. The whole creation is created maintained and reproduces in the form of Male and Female. Rather than mythological it is empirically necessary .

What you are doing is looking at what you observe here and deducing this is what is meant by the image of God. That's a big assumption. In any case the animal kingdom, fish and worms, have hermaphrodite forms.


Your discussion on the image of God being x or y is of no value. We might as well say God has a beard, there being people endowed with beards on Earth.

[dio9]

[Replying to post 26 by marco]

Romans 1:20 says ; as I read it says the creation reflects the creator. Implies we can know of God's character in Adam and Eve and everything else.

For the invisible things of
him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that
are made, [even] his eternal
power and Godhead; so that
they are without excuse:

I see a Father /Mother , male /female , positive /negative , night and day paradigm here.

[William]

[Replying to post 25 by bluethread]

Yes, I think I got the name wrong. I don't spend much time on that kind doctrine.

I find it is a good idea to acquaint oneself with as much theology as one can, to get a broader, deeper - well rounded - understanding...

"Complimentary" invokes the implication that one without the other is not WHOLE.

You may be inferring that, but I was not implying that at all.

Well it remains to be seen which is the better option to proceed with in terms of realism.

I also know of no one who sees that as implicit in the term. That which compliments praises or enhances.

Well in terms of marriage, is one to assume that it is the husband who gets the praises and enhancements? You used the term, I am simply cutting away the meat in order to get to the bones of what you are informing the reader.

It does not indicate whether the complimentary items are separately whole or not.

Is a male whole without a female? Perhaps the whole idea of 'complimentary' is in itself a poor definition.

A grass catcher is complimentary to a lawn mower, but the lawn mower is whole without it.

Is the hubby the mower and the missus the catcher? I would suppose that without the grass, neither would be of much use together or separate. So what is 'the grass' in this wee analogy?

Personally I think a lawn-mower is incomplete without the catcher and it is semantics to say one is different from the other. All the analogy seems to say is that the husband doesn't really need the wife and can function quite alright without her.

Culturally speaking, wife and husband become ONE, and essentially therein is the compliment.

In that context that is correct.

Equals.

That is not true. No relationship is equal.

So say you. Perhaps this is true of many human relationships, but then where could one example these and show also that the inequality is a healthy thing?
One would of course expect a GOD to be far more fair than that, if he is going to be a good GOD-husband rather than model his husbandry off human males who believe "No relationship is equal".

In every relationship one has skills and abilities that make it superior to the other and vice versa.

Ah yes - the voice of elitism insinuating it's philosophy as GOD-ordained.

This type of thinking is precisely why human beings have been faltering on the path for so many centuries now and likely is the root cause of the war of the sexes.

That argument is romantic egalitariian tripe, that has no basis in relaity.

So the elitist would argue. But the particular reality they desire to continue to inflict upon the world is fading fast as people realize more and more just what an evil charade it is. Whether or not Abranites continue to steer the course toward the assured failure of humanity as a species is admittedly under question.

I can see how a romantic egalitarian could rationalize it that way, because that one would see patriachy as inherently bad.

As it is practiced, it certainly has given that impression for centuries already. The evidence is undeniable. There is little point in proclaiming ones particular religion is NOT inherently bad when its adherents believe in such antiquated ideals as 'relationships are never equal'. The same would apply if it were matriarchs at the helm telling everyone the same piece of useless, destructive information. Obviously the antidote is in the ideal of equality and its practical application. One has heard it argued that the churches roles was precisely this, but alas the bigoted males got into the drivers seat and made sure that was not going to take place without a fight.

To believe that equality is simply a 'romantic' notion just because ones particular world view embraces a more primitive condescending notion of elitism in the form and through the function of patently bad patriarchy expressing itself clearly and destructively through the Abrahamic religions to various degrees, says more about the ones expressing such tones of inequality than it does about the actual truth of the matter.

However, I do not see that in the Scriptures. In fact, that is why the Scriptures refer to Adonai as Abba. Using your logic, one could reject egalitarianism because it is grounded in modern western human culture.

In observing this "modern western human culture" you speak of, I see clearly that it is still heavily influenced by those the Abrahamic religions. Certainly there is a concerted effort for many to try and change that attitude - primarily in themselves and secondarily in expressing distaste for the old ways proven to be more evil than good, and at least extend some energy in attempting to help enlightening others who cling to the old for the sake of remaining unchanged and loyal to a GOD made in the image of human bigots.

[William]

[Replying to post 27 by dio9]

Sometimes I have wondered how some other species on some other planet might initially understand the idea of GOD, if say - they were all hermaphrodite and could impregnate themselves rather than each other, or it took three individuals to procreate rather than two.

It seems clear that ideas of GOD would initially be modeled upon the ones coming up with the ideas - as is plainly evident in human history - and in relation to human tribalism the strongest - the hunters - the bullies - the forceful - the fighters - the protectors - would present the world with the idea that GOD is a male who shares all those same tendencies and is 'why' we are like we are.

This of course is still a very unbalanced manner in which to form ideas of GOD as it leaves out, treats unequally, marginalizes and demonizes anything which is not 'like GOD'.

In relation to the bible I get the impression the message of equality attempts to be a voice heard but is also suppressed by another voice in the very same book which is far more overbearing and historically variably dangerous and reduces all opposition to being that of - to put it 'nicely' - "romanticism" and something to be crushed out of humanity as an evil blight of non realism which has to be extinguished.

[bluethread]

I also know of no one who sees that as implicit in the term. That which compliments praises or enhances.

Well in terms of marriage, is one to assume that it is the husband who gets the praises and enhancements? You used the term, I am simply cutting away the meat in order to get to the bones of what you are informing the reader.

No, of course not. Husbands and wives praise and enhance one another. Why would one cut away the meat? Marriage is not a bear bones thing. It is a very complicated relationship.

It does not indicate whether the complimentary items are separately whole or not.

Is a male whole without a female? Perhaps the whole idea of 'complimentary' is in itself a poor definition.

A grass catcher is complimentary to a lawn mower, but the lawn mower is whole without it.

Is the hubby the mower and the missus the catcher? I would suppose that without the grass, neither would be of much use together or separate. So what is 'the grass' in this wee analogy?

This sounds like an argument in search of conflict. Some men and women are able to live full fulfilling lives without a mate. First you insist that equality is implicit in the term complimentary, then when I show that it is not, you say the term is "a poor definition" of the marriage relationship. Equality is also "a poor definition" of marriage. I don't think that either one is a good definition. As I stated before marriage is a very complicated thing.

Personally I think a lawn-mower is incomplete without the catcher and it is semantics to say one is different from the other. All the analogy seems to say is that the husband doesn't really need the wife and can function quite alright without her.

Oh, you don't believe in mulching. That is pretty common practice around here. I didn't say which was the mover and which was the catcher. When it come to bearing children the man is clearly the catcher and women have been known to deliver on their own. Why the sexist bias in your presumptions?

Culturally speaking, wife and husband become ONE, and essentially therein is the compliment.

In that context that is correct.

Equals.

No, three-quarters and one-quarter equals one. Also, who says the ratio is stagnant. I here tell that in a good marriage each partner gives 110%. How does that work in strict mathematics.

That is not true. No relationship is equal.

So say you. Perhaps this is true of many human relationships, but then where could one example these and show also that the inequality is a healthy thing?
One would of course expect a GOD to be far more fair than that, if he is going to be a good GOD-husband rather than model his husbandry off human males who believe "No relationship is equal".

I think it would not be possible to do a statistical sample. One could possibly do a sample of a particular activity. However, compilation of all facets of a relationship combined with the assigning a value to each is staggering. Quite frankly, I think any couple that engages in such silly number crunching is not going to have much of a relationship at all.

In every relationship one has skills and abilities that make it superior to the other and vice versa.

Ah yes - the voice of elitism insinuating it's philosophy as GOD-ordained.

This type of thinking is precisely why human beings have been faltering on the path for so many centuries now and likely is the root cause of the war of the sexes.

Hold it, I never argued that a difference in skills between partners was ordained by a deity. I just stated it as an observable reality of society. Some are better at some things and others are better at other things. If they join forces and specialize they are better at more things.

That argument is romantic egalitarian tripe, that has no basis in reality.

So the elitist would argue. But the particular reality they desire to continue to inflict upon the world is fading fast as people realize more and more just what an evil charade it is. Whether or not Abramites continue to steer the course toward the assured failure of humanity as a species is admittedly under question.

So, you are in favor of a brave new world, where everyone is exactly the same? Sounds quite boring to me.

I can see how a romantic egalitarian could rationalize it that way, because that one would see patriachy as inherently bad.

As it is practiced, it certainly has given that impression for centuries already. The evidence is undeniable. There is little point in proclaiming ones particular religion is NOT inherently bad when its adherents believe in such antiquated ideals as 'relationships are never equal'. The same would apply if it were matriarchs at the helm telling everyone the same piece of useless, destructive information. Obviously the antidote is in the ideal of equality and its practical application. One has heard it argued that the churches roles was precisely this, but alas the bigoted males got into the drivers seat and made sure that was not going to take place without a fight.

You say, "as it is practiced". Then are you admitting that patriarchy is not inherently bad? You also condemn matriarchy. You don't seem to have much respect for parenting. Who is this one and who is it that said that the ideal of equality and it's practical application is the role of the church? Who's doctrine are we talking about? Also, are you saying that it is just the bigoted males that are standing in the way of this egalitarian utopia, or all males are by nature bigoted and are standing in the way of the egalitarian utopia.

To believe that equality is simply a 'romantic' notion just because ones particular world view embraces a more primitive condescending notion of elitism in the form and through the function of patently bad patriarchy expressing itself clearly and destructively through the Abrahamic religions to various degrees, says more about the ones expressing such tones of inequality than it does about the actual truth of the matter.

No, I am calling it a romantic notion, because it is based in the romanticism of the late 18th century. The romantic ideal of the individual as a moral agent is laudable, as we see in the American revolution. However, the ideal of the individual as equal to all others, is tripe. A Tale of Two Cities, lays this out quite clearly.

However, I do not see that in the Scriptures. In fact, that is why the Scriptures refer to Adonai as Abba. Using your logic, one could reject egalitarianism because it is grounded in modern western human culture.

In observing this "modern western human culture" you speak of, I see clearly that it is still heavily influenced by those the Abrahamic religions. Certainly there is a concerted effort for many to try and change that attitude - primarily in themselves and secondarily in expressing distaste for the old ways proven to be more evil than good, and at least extend some energy in attempting to help enlightening others who cling to the old for the sake of remaining unchanged and loyal to a GOD made in the image of human bigots.

Your accusation appeared to be that it was wrong because it was culturally based. What is it that makes your preferred culture inherently superior to any other?