Inclusive Bible Laguage?

Dedicated Mind · #1 03-14-2013, 02:40 PM

is using Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer better than using Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in order to address feminist theologians concern of patriarchy and male bias by referring to God as male?

"God's activity in creating, in redeeming, and in sustaining is subversive of concepts of domination and subordination that have characterized theological reflection on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

quote from "Lift Every Voice, Constructing Christian Theologies from the Underside.

Cindy · #2 03-14-2013, 02:43 PM

No

Luke · #3 03-14-2013, 02:55 PM

If they do not like the titles that God gave Himself they should ask Him to change them Himself because we as mankind have no business trying to correct God!

Dedicated Mind · #4 03-14-2013, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

If they do not like the titles that God gave Himself they should ask Him to change them Himself because we as mankind have no business trying to correct God!

"The New Testament and Psalms is a new version of the Bible that speaks more directly than ever before to today's social concerns, especially the move towards universal inclusivity. This revolutionary new version pushes the English language to new levels of inclusive expression. The noted scholars who produced this work address issues of gender, race and ethnicity more directly than ever before. The resulting version is one that can truly be said to speak to all people."

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Testam...alms+inclusive

stephenroehm · #5 03-14-2013, 04:33 PM

When you need more than the Death, Burial, and Resurrection to speak to people, you're saying the wrong things.

When you won't submit yourself to Jesus Christ while seeing Him crucified for your sins, but you will submit yourself to a mental image you construct based on the gender of your preference, you are practicing idolatry.

I can't believe this is a topic that is seriously being presented as a legitimate Gospel.

Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9-10 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Dedicated Mind · #6 03-14-2013, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephenroehm

When you need more than the Death, Burial, and Resurrection to speak to people, you're saying the wrong things.

When you won't submit yourself to Jesus Christ while seeing Him crucified for your sins, but you will submit yourself to a mental image you construct based on the gender of your preference, you are practicing idolatry.

I can't believe this is a topic that is seriously being presented as a legitimate Gospel.

Galatians 1:6-8 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9-10 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

no one is changing the message of the gospel only the names we call God. do you really think that God is a male? Isn't the word creator more apt at describing God than Father? did christ have to be a male? do women need a male savior? can't son be called redeemer and be less offensive to gender sensitive women while preserving an apt description of the son's role? i think this language makes sense.

Cindy · #7 03-14-2013, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

no one is changing the message of the gospel only the names we call God. do you really think that God is a male? Isn't the word creator more apt at describing God than Father? did christ have to be a male? do women need a male savior? can't son be called redeemer and be less offensive to gender sensitive women while preserving an apt description of the son's role? i think this language makes sense.

No, no, yes, no, no!!

Cindy · #8 03-14-2013, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

no one is changing the message of the gospel only the names we call God. do you really think that God is a male? Isn't the word creator more apt at describing God than Father? did christ have to be a male? do women need a male savior? can't son be called redeemer and be less offensive to gender sensitive women while preserving an apt description of the son's role? i think this language makes sense.

Why do you think WE can change God's name? Gender sensitive women? Can we change God?

Luke · #9 03-14-2013, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

no one is changing the message of the gospel only the names we call God. do you really think that God is a male? Isn't the word creator more apt at describing God than Father? did christ have to be a male? do women need a male savior? can't son be called redeemer and be less offensive to gender sensitive women while preserving an apt description of the son's role? i think this language makes sense.

God gave Himself the title FATHER therefore to say that is wrong or that it is in need of change is to say that God was wrong and that HE needs improvement!!!

If you have the ability to change HIS name so as to be more inclusive what about those who want to be more inclusive of Islam by saying when we witness to them we use the term allah instead of God do we accommodate them as well by changeing HIS name?

stephenroehm · #10 03-14-2013, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

no one is changing the message of the gospel only the names we call God. do you really think that God is a male? Isn't the word creator more apt at describing God than Father? did christ have to be a male? do women need a male savior? can't son be called redeemer and be less offensive to gender sensitive women while preserving an apt description of the son's role? i think this language makes sense.

1. Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is God and that He is male. I see nowhere in Scripture to suggest otherwise.

2. Both of the words "Creator" and "Father" are equally apt to describing God. They are both roles that He plays in our lives. To minimize "Father" is to allow bias (I'm assuming political) to influence how you want to present God to the world.

3. Christ WAS and IS male. We don't have to assume or speculate as to why.

4. Women need God to save them, and He happened to take upon Himself the form of a servant, come in the likeness of man, and die on a cross for the sins of all men and women. There is salvation in no other name than Jesus, so yes, they need a male savior as Jesus is the only one.

5. Why not try to present as much of Jesus as you can instead of trying to be politically correct?