Presbyterians allow experimenting with alt. to 'Father, Son and Holy Ghost

The divine Trinity — "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" — could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.

"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.

The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.
(snip - other options to father, son, holy ghost at the link)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-06-19-presbyterians_x.htm?csp=15

rock, redeemer, friend???

;)

Overall, I think this is a good idea. During my short lived religious phase, I definitely had issues with the fact that G-d is of neither sex yet we always refer to G-d as male. I thought it was a shortcoming that we never came up with a unique personal pronoun specifically for G-d.

The Presbyterians were trying to avoid gender specific language so I don't understand why they didn't use the obvious Parent, Child (Off-spring?), Holy Spirit.

They obviously didn't like "holy spirit" for some reason though - not sure what the issue was there; obviously not gender.

Oh my. Best laugh all week.

But MOTHER CHILD AND WOMB? I don't think I could say that with a straight face.

Although "Holy Ghost" is, in and of itself, pretty funny.

Jefferson would probably have had a chuckle over this. This is of course a good thing, reflecting the metamorphosis of religion away from the more unbelievable claims. Eventually, the Bible will be considered a book of myths.

The Boss, The new Kids on the Block, and the Grateful Dead?

If these people don't like the way their religion has consistently regarded the trinity for thousands of years...they should leave it. Changing it now to meet their sensibilities is dishonest, contrary to their very dogma and revisionist. I guess they want to cling onto a religion they don't even find appealing, so they just put a petty label over something they don't like even if it is going back on their own religion so that they can convince themselves that their faith isn't what it is.

Just pathetic.

What's next? Tree, acorn, grass? :eyes:

according to my sources the concept of the Trinity was established by the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD not "thousands of years" ago.

Perhaps the Presbyterians are just trying to get back to the original view of God in Mark 12:29 "The Lord our God is one Lord"

But my main point stands. The fact that Christianity has regarded "God" as male for quite some time (this time an understatement) doesn't change. The fact that Christianity inherently places masculinity far above femininity cannot be changed (Adam before Eve, who sinned first and more). The fact that Christianity has never put femininity on any high pedestal (and Mary is celebrated because she was supposedly a virgin mother, something that is impossible and in defiance of femininity itself) is also unavoidable. All this and more shows that what these people are trying to do is simply ridiculous.

Also, most of what Christianity is was established at the early Christian councils. That IS Christianity, and anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves.

Mark 12:29 proves nothing. IMO, it is meaningless in this context.

But when you state unequivocally that "That IS Christianity, and anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves." you seem to deny anyone else the right to determine for themselves what Christianity is. That is not hyperbole, that is arrogance. It implies that there were no Christians before the "early Christian councils" and that anyone who goes back to the roots of Christianity is "fooling themselves". That seems to me to be a pretty bizarre concept since the founder of Christianity came 300 yrs. before the "early Christian councils" and he (Jesus) had a lot to do with the determination of what Christianity is.

However, a dogma is a dogma, and it is not something that people can just change if it's something they don't completely agree with. It is simply mistaken to claim that people are allowed to determine what an established religion is, because that religion has already been defined quite extensively. People can't just make stuff up so that they can rationalize a faith to themselves. If they try to, that is in blatant disregard for that very faith, and in defiance of what it actually is.

It's not arrogance to observe what any dogma has been, is and will always be. It's not arrogance to object to people spinning around 1,700 years later and saying that their religion is something else when it clearly is not (for the reasons I listed).

There were Christians before the early Christian councils, but that does not mean they didn't regard femininity any better than afterwards. The basic tenets of Christianity remain the same, and that is decidedly in complete favor of masculinity, and the trinity reflects that fundamental belief. Those councils did not establish or originate the Christian mindset, they echoed it. If you want to go to the "roots of Christianity", you should start by recognizing that there is little to nothing known of the original writings, and next by recognizing that the first Christians didn't even want gentiles in their movement, and next by seeing that the first Christians hated other religions, and next by...you get my point.

People like Calvin, Locke, and Luther, disagree with you on the static nature of Christian dogma. And I assume you disagree with them. Amen.

the reformers you mention disagreed on how the prevelant establishment was going about the dogma, not the dogma itself. Luther, for example, thought there was too much in the way between an individual Christian and "God" due to the Catholic Church's rites, not that "God" was a rock or a mother or something, so it's quite different IMO. That's why I don't think you can compare those reforms with what these people are trying to do.

Anyway, it's just my opinion. Thanks for the discussion.

our church a while back. It pretty much bombed.