Comments on: Passion for God

By: Wendy

Wendy — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:53:19 +0000

I find great comfort in this quote. Thanks, Tony.

By: Ann

Ann — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:43:12 +0000

I meant to say:
Just what came to my mind.

By: Ann

Ann — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:42:33 +0000

@Jim
Wouldn’t you describe Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemene as being in anguish and experiencing uncertainty & doubt? And He IS God.
Just was came to my mind.

By: Chad Holtz

Chad Holtz — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:59:31 +0000

That nathan sounds like another wise nathan I know
(notice, no gendered pronouns were harmed in the writing of this comment).

By: Kenton

Kenton — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:41:50 +0000

Looks like this one is in public domain.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14636

By: nathan

nathan — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:12:43 +0000

no more limiting than referring to God as “herself”-which doesn’t really solve anything.

you still have the same issues of limit and reduction when we trade Him for Her.

That being said and for the record, i’m totally cool with “feminine” imagery of God.

using Father OR Mother or Her or Him is useful in devotional inflection.

however, when i preach or write, i try to refer to God as God and avoid pronouns…therefore the discourse uses God, God’s, GodSelf, etc. this way i attempt to be most inclusive.

By: courtney

courtney — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:29:47 +0000

I’m no history buff, but I think the scriptures that were written and then selected for the Bible were written and selected by men in a patriarchal society. One could either think that God revealed God’s self as male to these people because that’s the only way they could “get it”, or one could think that the men doing the writing just made God a man without considering any other options. If God reveals God’s self in all things and all people (via Holy Spirit) throughout all time, to say that we refer to God as male because that’s how “God revealed himself in scripture” seems an oversimplification. I mean, people of course refer to God as male for that reason, but I find it extremely limiting.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:15:03 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by jonestony: New Blog Post: Passion for God – #quotestoolongfortwitter “Those who believe that they believe in God, but without … http://ow.ly/16orOD...

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:04:32 +0000

I think we refer to God with masculine pronouns because that’s how he reveals himself in scripture. It has nothing to do with either logic or patriarchy.

Question: Does this quote mean Jesus didn’t really believe in God?

By: Courtney

Courtney — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:19:05 +0000

I quite agree that God is beyond gender, Ann, but I would never say that it makes more sense to refer to God as male. One could easily argue the opposite–that it makes much more sense to call a Creator female, as did so many cultures before us.

The only reason I push the “she” envelope is to break out of the modern American mold of a patriarchal religiosity.