background preloader

Theme 2: Religious Concepts

Facebook Twitter

Is God really male? Grammatical gender in Hebrew and gender in the spiritual realm - ColorQ's Bible Story Corner. In the Hebrew Bible (and in translations to languages with a she/he dichotomy) God is referred to as "he".

Is God really male? Grammatical gender in Hebrew and gender in the spiritual realm - ColorQ's Bible Story Corner

God might be a 'He' in the Bible but non-Hebrew-literate individuals do not always know that in Hebrew language, grammatical gender is NOT an indicator of actual gender. Hebrew nouns have grammatical gender. Each object is masculine or feminine. An adopted son? Some early heresies. If, as some claim, the Bible interprets itself, much of the history of Christianity makes no sense, as it consists, in large measure, of men arguing over what it means.

An adopted son? Some early heresies

One of the first such disputes, once the Christians had been thrown out of the Synagogues, came as Christians began to grapple with the implications of Christ being the logos and the sarx – the Word and the flesh. If the words of Holy Scripture were that easy to understand, then the first few centuries of Christianity’s existence make no sense. Is God male? Flashcards. Sallie McFague - Wikipedia. Sallie McFague (1933-) is an American feminist Christian theologian, best known for her analysis of how metaphor lies at the heart of how we may speak about God.

Sallie McFague - Wikipedia

She has applied this approach in particular to ecological issues, writing extensively on care for the earth as if it were God’s ‘body’. McFague was born in May 1933 in Quincy, Massachusetts, United States. She gained a Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature in 1955 from Smith College, and a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Yale Divinity School in 1959. She then went on to gain a Master of Arts degree at Yale University in 1960 and was awarded her Ph.D. in 1964 - a revised version of her doctoral thesis being published in 1966 as Literature and the Christian Life. Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Sallie McFague. McFague, Sallie Contents The Theology of Sallie McFague (Wesley J.

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Sallie McFague

Wildman, 1988) (This dictionary article is from my first year of graduate school at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. It is posted here for my students, unchanged from the original, so that they can feel good about picking on me for the errors they find and for my ignorance of bibliographic conventions. If they agree to post their juvenile material in public, then it is only fair that I post mine, too.) Sallie McFague: Mann's Quick Notes (Mark Mann, 1997) See: Feminist Theology: Rosemary Radford Ruether/Sallie McFague (Rolf Bouma, 1997)

Can we call God 'Mother'? In using maternal metaphors for God alongside the paternal ones, we embrace the fullness of God’s love for us.

Can we call God 'Mother'?

Most Christians are familiar with referring to God as Father, but can we call God “Mother”? Many places in the Bible and Christian tradition as well as theological voices answer this question affirmatively: God can be referred to as “Mother.” In fact, every recent pope since John Paul I has made some reference to the value of understanding God like a mother. The Bible does not shy away from using female imagery—particularly related to birth and motherhood—to describe God. Isaiah 42:14 speaks of God “cry[ing] out like a woman in labor” with gasps and pants. The biblical text uses images from motherhood to describe Jesus as well. Why is God not female? Image copyright ALAMY A group in the Church of England is calling for services to address God as "She" as well as "He".

Why is God not female?

The question of God's gender goes back to the early Christian Church, writes Stephen Tomkins. The Christian Church has always had a bit of a problem with God's gender. He doesn't have one, but - as that statement demonstrates - it's hard to talk about God without giving God a gender. To talk about God we have to call God something, and avoiding pronouns altogether is cumbersome, as I've just demonstrated again. WHY GOD IS FATHER AND NOT MOTHER. Abba Isn’t Daddy – The Traditional Aramaic Father’s Day Discussion. It is traditional that I bring up the common myth that the Aramaic word “abba” means “daddy” around this time of year, but I must admit that this is the first year in a long time that sightings of that anecdote among the blogs are few.

Abba Isn’t Daddy – The Traditional Aramaic Father’s Day Discussion

(So either, there isn’t as much interest this year, or people are actually doing their research. So, for those of you who aren’t familiar with this particular meme, it is common to find around the Internet and in sermons throughout the world that where Jesus is recorded in the New Testament to use the Aramaic word “abba” that the term was an informal word, the likes a child would refer to their pop (i.e. “dad” or “daddy”).

How does the suffering God give us hope? - The Moltmanniac. This week I’ve been expanding on how Moltmann’s book The Crucified God calls us to rethink everything in light of the revelation of God we see in the cross of Christ.

How does the suffering God give us hope? - The Moltmanniac

I introduced this concept here and expanded specifically how this relates to Moltmann’s understanding of omnipotence and divine weakness (with a little help from Barth and Bonhoeffer) here. Below is another audio clip from the Emergent Village Theological Conversation with Jürgen Moltmann, where he answers the follow up question of “how does the suffering God give us hope?” In a culture that glorifies success, we must learn that God is present with the lowly and the forsaken. Does God Suffer? by Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap. Some readers may think this an odd article to be published by “a journal of religion and public life.”

Does God Suffer? by Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap.

It is an exercise in theology, philosophy, and the history of ideas on a question that may seem far removed from anything that might be called public life. In fact, however, it is pressingly pertinent to the Church’s most important public task: communicating the gospel, and doing so in a culture whose dominant virtues are compassion, empathy, and, as it is sometimes put, feeling one another’s pain.

In such a culture, it is very tempting to speak of God as compassionate, empathic, and, therefore, suffering as we suffer. I believe that temptation should be resisted. Understanding why it should calls for a careful examination of relevant considerations in theology, philosophy, and the history of ideas. Schmemann on Death and the Afterlife. Now we understand why God desires that death, why the Father gives His Only-Begotten Son to it.

Schmemann on Death and the Afterlife

He desires the salvation of man, i.e., that the destruction of death shall not be an act of His power (“Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels?” Matthew 26:53), not a violence, be it even a saving one, but an act of that love, freedom and free dedication to God for which He created man.

The Theologian. By Prof. Gerald Bray Perhaps no traditional Christian doctrine has taken a greater bashing from modern theologians than the assertion that God is "impassible" by nature--that is, that he cannot experience suffering. Such a doctrine sounds to many people today as if God does not care about human life. I don’t believe in the God that Stephen Fry doesn’t believe in either. Someone once told me that, when he was a young man, Stephen Fry thought about becoming a priest. Now I don’t know if this is true, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit. Because the way he expressed himself in a recent interview – calling God an “evil, capricious, monstrous maniac” – was almost biblical in its theological intensity. And though I think there is a whopper of a mistaken assumption at the heart of his answer, I nonetheless think it was an admirable one.

Why? Because what Fry was asked was what he would say to God if he met him face to face. What greater example of speaking truth to power could there be than this? Too many religious people actually worship power. The Scandal of the Cross. Posted by Ravi Zacharias on March 14, 2013. The Crucified God. Filioque - Wikipedia. Filioque (Ecclesiastical Latin: [filiˈɔkwe], literally "and [from] the Son"[1][discuss]) is a Latin term added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (NCC) which is not in the original version. It has been the subject of great controversy between Eastern and Western Christianity. The Latin term Filioque describes the double procession of the Holy Spirit and is translated into the English clause "and the Son" in that creed: I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father ⟨and the Son⟩.

Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified. Trinity. According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths,[8] there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".[9] Accordingly, the whole work of creation and grace is seen as a single operation common to all three divine persons, in which each shows forth what is proper to him in the Trinity, so that all things are "from the Father", "through the Son" and "in the Holy Spirit".[10] Many concepts seen as essential elements of the Christian faith, such as "monotheism", "incarnation", "omnipotence", are denoted by terms not found in the Bible, although Christian consider the concepts to be contained in the Bible.

Etymology[edit] History[edit] The Trinity (Christian Triune Godhead) explained Part 1. The Trinity (Christian Triune Godhead) explained Part 2. BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, The Trinity. Christus Victor. The Problem with Christus Victor. Substitutionary atonement - Wikipedia. El Greco's Jesus Carrying the Cross, 1580. Technically speaking, substitutionary atonement is the name given to a number of Christian models of the atonement that all regard Jesus as dying as a substitute for others, 'instead of' them. It is expressed in the Bible in passages such as "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness",[1 Pet. 2:24] and "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God.

"[1 Pet. 3:18] (although other ways of reading passages like this are also offered).[1][2] There is also a less technical use of the term "substitution" in discussion about atonement when it is used in "the sense that [Jesus, through his death,] did for us that which we can never do for ourselves".[3] Types of substitutionary theories[edit] Four best known models[edit] Ransom and Christus Victor theory[edit] Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia. The moral influence or example theory of the atonement holds that the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. ‘My God, My God’: When Jesus felt abandoned. LP4 Atonement. 4B Theories of Atonement.