The following article was found in the Daily Mail.
The Scottish Episcopal Church has caused controversy by removing masculine references to God in a new order of service. The new form of worship, which removes words such as 'Lord, he, his, him' and 'mankind' from services, has been written by the church in an attempt to acknowledge that God is 'beyond human gender'. Episcopalian bishops have approved the introduction of more 'inclusive' language, which deliberately removes references suggesting that God is of male gender
Traditionalists have criticised the changes on the grounds that they smack of political correctness and because they believe they are not consistent with the teachings of the Bible. The alterations have been made to provide an alternative to the established 1982 Liturgy, which, like the Bible, refers to God as a man. The new order of service, which can be used by priests if they have difficulties with a male God, has been produced by the church's Liturgy Committee in consultation with the Faith & Order Board of General Synod and the College of Bishops.
The controversial changes were discussed at the church's General Synod recently. The minutes of the synod reveal that female priests had asked why God was still referred to as a man. The altered version of the 1982 Liturgy sees masculine pronouns removed when they refer to God and the new approach has even been extended to humans. For example, the word 'mankind' has been taken out and replaced with 'world'. Some senior religious figures have objected to the new form of words.
More...Archbishop of Canterbury hits back after Stephen Hawking insists God did NOT create the universe. 'It is political correctness,' said Rev Stuart Hall of the Scottish Prayer Book Society and Honorary Professor of Divinity at the University of St Andrews. 'It is quite unnecessary. The word man in English - especially among scientists - is inclusive of both sexes. 'Those who try to minimise references to God as the Father and Christ as his Son have great difficulties, because the New Testament is shot through with these references.' Direct quotations from the Bible have been spared change, because of a reluctance to interfere with the word of God.
Services in Scottish Episcopal churches, like the one above, could change as masculine references to God such as 'Lord, him and mankind' have been removed to provide an alternative to the established 1982 Liturgy. However, the blessing at the end of services has been changed by some ministers from 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' to 'Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier'.
'The changing of God language is a little tricky,' admitted Rev Darren McFarland, convener of the church's liturgy committee. 'It is then that opinion is much more divided. We have really tried not to mess around with the descriptions of God in the biblical text. But what we want to see is generous language when it comes to gender. God is above and beyond human gender.
'We are not saying God is not masculine. God is also feminine. The problem is trying to use human language to describe the indescribable. 'The bishops have permitted these changes, people do not have to use this form. But we are trying to honour the breadth of descriptions of God in a way that's helpful to the church and its membership.'
Last week scientist Stephen Hawking sparked a religious debate when he declared the universe was not created by god because 'the universe can and will create itself from nothing'. Hawking's controversial claims from his new book The Grand Design, set out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos. The Archbishop of Canterbury dismissed Hawking's findings.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309451/God-longer-male-says-Scottish-Episcopal-church.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0zFQx79Js
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Women must be veiled?
"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved."
Author: 1 Corinthians 11 Verses #: 5
It is wrong for a man to pray with his head covered and wrong for a woman to pray without her head covered. Contemporary christian women ignore this verse entirely. Up until the 1960's women at least wore hats and veils in church. Modern protestant churches have completely given this edict up. It is just not popular. A head scarf is an inconvenience and a visual reminder that women and men are not equal scripturally. This is just not a popular concept and the practice of women covering their heads has been given up except for nuns in the catholic tradition. There is nothing more inconvenient that having to keep something on top of your head. The head covering is still completely required for an islamic woman to show piety. Nothing reveals inequality more. Men are free to be themselves and women must be covered. Modern christian women have chosen freedom in this aspect and have rejected the symbolism that they are "different" and must appear different than men. The whole of Paul's teaching served to keep women silent, powerless and "covered" for 2,000 years of dogma. Modern women reject this. Should we also reject that God is male and male is god. Should we also reject that Eve was "created" from Adam? Biology and evidence would tell us that Eve birthed the first human(s) and is the mother of all humans. The worship of a "male god" who devalues women and their biology has negated their right to exist for 4,000 years. At one point the first Eve birthed the first "human", and she was not wearing a veil when she did it!
Author: 1 Corinthians 11 Verses #: 5
It is wrong for a man to pray with his head covered and wrong for a woman to pray without her head covered. Contemporary christian women ignore this verse entirely. Up until the 1960's women at least wore hats and veils in church. Modern protestant churches have completely given this edict up. It is just not popular. A head scarf is an inconvenience and a visual reminder that women and men are not equal scripturally. This is just not a popular concept and the practice of women covering their heads has been given up except for nuns in the catholic tradition. There is nothing more inconvenient that having to keep something on top of your head. The head covering is still completely required for an islamic woman to show piety. Nothing reveals inequality more. Men are free to be themselves and women must be covered. Modern christian women have chosen freedom in this aspect and have rejected the symbolism that they are "different" and must appear different than men. The whole of Paul's teaching served to keep women silent, powerless and "covered" for 2,000 years of dogma. Modern women reject this. Should we also reject that God is male and male is god. Should we also reject that Eve was "created" from Adam? Biology and evidence would tell us that Eve birthed the first human(s) and is the mother of all humans. The worship of a "male god" who devalues women and their biology has negated their right to exist for 4,000 years. At one point the first Eve birthed the first "human", and she was not wearing a veil when she did it!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Death commanded for brides!
We read the Golden Rule and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God’s teachings on morality: if a man discovers on his wedding night that his bride is not a virgin, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).[3]
The Old Testament was not kind to women. Proof of virginity is a not clear cut. The woman may or may not have been born with a complete hymen, and if she does possess it it can be torn easily at any point during childhood and a woman may or may not bleed with her first experience with penetration. The groom had already paid a bride price and the father had already sold his daughter into an arranged marriage in the tribal custom of the ancient hebrews. If a groom wanted to take displeasure in the bride and claim she was not a virgin the groom was "commanded" to stone her to death on her father's doorstep. This continues the belief that the virginity and the proof of it was the only value a woman possessed. Virginity is worshipped in the worship of the virgin Mary and seen in both the muslim and christian and jewish cultures as the only quality that makes a woman desirable and valuable. The root of this obsession with virginity no doubt springs from this Old Testament commandment and continues to this day. Would the god creator write such a commandment? Or was this a teaching from a patriarchal society? When we go into court we swear on the bible to tell the truth. Does the bible tell the truth?
For 4,000 years religious men and women have sworn that every word is in fact the "word of God".
Would a just and loving god prescribe such unjust treatment for a young girl because she did not bleed upon penetration on her wedding night?
The Old Testament was not kind to women. Proof of virginity is a not clear cut. The woman may or may not have been born with a complete hymen, and if she does possess it it can be torn easily at any point during childhood and a woman may or may not bleed with her first experience with penetration. The groom had already paid a bride price and the father had already sold his daughter into an arranged marriage in the tribal custom of the ancient hebrews. If a groom wanted to take displeasure in the bride and claim she was not a virgin the groom was "commanded" to stone her to death on her father's doorstep. This continues the belief that the virginity and the proof of it was the only value a woman possessed. Virginity is worshipped in the worship of the virgin Mary and seen in both the muslim and christian and jewish cultures as the only quality that makes a woman desirable and valuable. The root of this obsession with virginity no doubt springs from this Old Testament commandment and continues to this day. Would the god creator write such a commandment? Or was this a teaching from a patriarchal society? When we go into court we swear on the bible to tell the truth. Does the bible tell the truth?
For 4,000 years religious men and women have sworn that every word is in fact the "word of God".
Would a just and loving god prescribe such unjust treatment for a young girl because she did not bleed upon penetration on her wedding night?
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The command of silence and childbearing (I Timothy 2 11-15)
I Timothy 2:11-15
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
Wow....Paul the Apostle has put a lot on women here. It took two thousand years of world history and over 150 years of American history to break free from these teachings for women to have a voice in their male dominated cultures.
First of all, Genesis 1:27 says God created male and female in his own image...all at once...and equally. At a later point, during a period of patriarchy, another creation story surfaced about Adam needed a "helper" and God creating Eve as an afterthought from Adam's rib for the benefit of Adam. For thousands of years men preferred to treat women as little more than a slave for his personal benefit. Women were "purchased" from the father's for a price. Women had no power and very few rights, they were born into a man's world dominated by a male religion. The struggle for equality first surfaced in 1850 in the first wave of the women's liberation movement. In addition to men, women were some of the most vocal opponents of equality. Over time the women's movement merged with the prohibition movement and although alcohol was made illegal, women still had not succeeded in securing the right to vote. The history of the women's movement and prohibition is a very interesting study of american history. A new book called LAST CALL goes into the details of prohibition in america.
Secondly, Paul the Apostle blames Eve and thus all women for the "fall of mankind" and "disobedience" to God. This is absurd. This allowed the church to insinuate for years that women just could not be trusted as leaders and the western world was forced into a male dominated and male controlled society that denied women equality, both inside the church and outside the church. Adam blamed Eve and men have been blaming women for eons. Paul picks up this rant and uses an old testament fable to insinuate that women are 1. Not equal in intellect or character to men. 2. Women are easily decieved and therefore not qualified to lead and 3.bearing children can somehow save a woman. Here is why Paul injects something totally new. Women save themselves from hell by having children. Women who are barren, or whose husband's are infertile are given no hope of saving themselves from an everlasting hell by Paul. This is just ridiculous and a new twist. The church picked up on this, as have men. Women have been forced into early motherhood and the burden of motherhood against their will. Today, the one way to assure a young woman of lifelong poverty is to force her to remain pregnant and bear children at a young age causing her development and educational opportunities to nearly cease.
Paul states that women can be saved if they have children, continue in "faith" and "give liberally" and remain "sober". I don't know if that means depressed or free from alcohol or both. This is quite a quilt trip on women. I think women would be well advised to read the teachings of Paul with caution as he is clearly not a fan of women.
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
Wow....Paul the Apostle has put a lot on women here. It took two thousand years of world history and over 150 years of American history to break free from these teachings for women to have a voice in their male dominated cultures.
First of all, Genesis 1:27 says God created male and female in his own image...all at once...and equally. At a later point, during a period of patriarchy, another creation story surfaced about Adam needed a "helper" and God creating Eve as an afterthought from Adam's rib for the benefit of Adam. For thousands of years men preferred to treat women as little more than a slave for his personal benefit. Women were "purchased" from the father's for a price. Women had no power and very few rights, they were born into a man's world dominated by a male religion. The struggle for equality first surfaced in 1850 in the first wave of the women's liberation movement. In addition to men, women were some of the most vocal opponents of equality. Over time the women's movement merged with the prohibition movement and although alcohol was made illegal, women still had not succeeded in securing the right to vote. The history of the women's movement and prohibition is a very interesting study of american history. A new book called LAST CALL goes into the details of prohibition in america.
Secondly, Paul the Apostle blames Eve and thus all women for the "fall of mankind" and "disobedience" to God. This is absurd. This allowed the church to insinuate for years that women just could not be trusted as leaders and the western world was forced into a male dominated and male controlled society that denied women equality, both inside the church and outside the church. Adam blamed Eve and men have been blaming women for eons. Paul picks up this rant and uses an old testament fable to insinuate that women are 1. Not equal in intellect or character to men. 2. Women are easily decieved and therefore not qualified to lead and 3.bearing children can somehow save a woman. Here is why Paul injects something totally new. Women save themselves from hell by having children. Women who are barren, or whose husband's are infertile are given no hope of saving themselves from an everlasting hell by Paul. This is just ridiculous and a new twist. The church picked up on this, as have men. Women have been forced into early motherhood and the burden of motherhood against their will. Today, the one way to assure a young woman of lifelong poverty is to force her to remain pregnant and bear children at a young age causing her development and educational opportunities to nearly cease.
Paul states that women can be saved if they have children, continue in "faith" and "give liberally" and remain "sober". I don't know if that means depressed or free from alcohol or both. This is quite a quilt trip on women. I think women would be well advised to read the teachings of Paul with caution as he is clearly not a fan of women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)