I offer nothing but the uncertain promise That I’ll honestly pursue the crooked path of the conscious Not just another body in the battle for the soul Never sold self for it’s weight in platinum and gold but Man we’re getting grown Wisdom got us thinking in the interest of our children even if they ain’t been given their flesh Their bones Their homes or their names yet I’m aiming for the change in my pocket for the payback The change augmented by the government to nothing The change of a whirlwind unraveling the coming of that next shit I can’t wait for when it comes, shit It better be worth the shit that I paid most my life with It’s nice when it rains sometime Cleansing minds in my habitat Imagine that I’m digging to find What was hidden by the myth of a god up in the sky Knowing that She meant for me to rhyme
So I Give thanks to the most, the least that I can do I wear this skin to find the me inside of you When I dream that I’m dreaming I feel most alive Sacrifice nights Write to survive
Proper hand gestures conjure ancestors Drinking from the bottle that was meant For the message that was sent from the tired and the true I give thanks to the most, the least that I can do
Way back I used to call upon the Father often I fought the devil last night and almost lost - Now I’m drinking bottled water Flushing out the toxins Vomiting and coughing feeling closer to the coffin Than I ever had Every morning that I arrive Is a night that I survive Just to be alive - sipping chai Listening to my favorite dj Communicate the music, what my rhymes would say If they were written With a needle To the groove Of a paper Stylus to papyrus, record to the player It’s more than just therapy or excessive energy I undo the mechanism meant to imprison me Spiritually The view from up is not enough I dwell below to find the god that I rebuff Redesigned, redefineed what it meant to be divine Knowing that She meant for me to rhyme
So I Give thanks to the most, the least that I can do I wear this skin to find the me inside of you When I dream that I’m dreaming I feel most alive Sacrifice nights, Write to survive Proper hand gestures conjure ancestors Drinking from the bottle that was meant For the message that was sent from the tired and the true I give thanks to the most, the least that I can do
Our Father My art is Heaven, hallowed be The drums beating me and my tongue into submission I can hardly speak breathing this indelible high From an endless supply of Godspeed, and I need A brand new prayer to read Seems the old ones grew tons of mold cuz they’re narrow as hell Sometimes they be thinking that this heavens for sale Worse than that, they still think God is a male But Moms used to hang up pictures of white Jesus Fist clutching rosary beads, over the years I began to question this Father Almighty Made in His image but don’t look nothing like me But we be the children of the most high Ghosts of the colonized lost in the time Redesign, redefine what it meant to be divine Knowing that She meant for me to rhyme
Yup, Biblical Hebrew is heavily gendered; even some of the verb conjugations agree with the gender of the subject. You have to know the sex of a dog just to command it to stop biting you. Or of the God, I guess.
Apophatic theology had quite the hey-day in the second and third centuries. The gist is that God is fundamentally unknowable, because God is so far beyond your puny human understanding and puny human language, that any affirmative statement you could make about God is wrong, because God is so much more than that. God isn’t wise, because God so dwarfs your pathetic understanding of what wisdom could ever be. God isn’t good, because God entirely transcends and subsumes your absurd categories of good and evil. God isn’t male, because God is so mind-bendingly ineffable that you can’t hope to place God into such wholly inadequate ontological labels like gender.
Therefore, the only true statements about God are negative statements, and the only way to even approach an understanding of God is to contemplate all the things God is not. God is not wise, God is not good, God is not male, for the same reason that sonnets are not purple. Your sad language cannot ever describe what God is, because God so wholly exceeds and transcends all the words and concepts you have. Think of the greatest grandest most amazing words you can, and if you try to apply them to God, you are nowhere near the ball park, the light from the ball park will take millions of years just to reach you, you are so so so so so wrong. So this is just going back to a real theology heritage, a pre-Augustine heritage.
That always raised the question for me though: if this being is so fundamentally unknowable that the only thing I can know about it is that I will never know anything, why are we having the conversation in the first place? Why not just ignore the big ineffable whateveritis, stop worrying about trying to know the unknowable, and get on with learning things we can actually know? See how that goes?
[Enlightenment, scientific revolution, human life expectancy doubles in 100 years.]
I think the “scientific” was meant as a joke, but the examples they gave were true. (Under other circumstances I might point out that the cake Lljeroth was cutting was part of an anti-racism performance art piece , but as I lived in Norway for a while I feel obliged to stick to official Norwegian policy, which is that Sweden is a cesspool of terrible people.)
This language change does nothing but paper over genuine theological debate about gendered language in reference to concepts of ultimate reality and a gendered God.
It obscures actual etymology with flimsy social constructs.
The fact is that the word “God” is a useful translation of the historical origins of the god of Judaism and Christianity. But the word “God” itself is already a gendered word.
At any rate, I can’t find any reference that ascribes God2 a gender.
Allow me … here are some useful references:
The word “God” is likely derived from the Lombardic “Goden,” referring to Odin, the male god of Norse mythology.
It is already common theory amongst feminist archeologists and theologians that Yahweh was a male Canaanite god with a consort named Asherah (from whom she was later “divorced”).
El is the male precursor god to Yahweh in the Tanakh, representing an henotheistic or pantheistic origin of the Jewish god of Abraham Isaac, and Jacob. This prefigures the Christian New Testament.
The general Christian concept in trinitarian monotheism is that God has neither a male nor female identity, but that Jesus was gendered male and the relationship between persons of the trinity is gendered in masculine language. The reason for this is Christianity’s roots in gendered creator-gods.
Mary Daly, radical feminist theologian, believed that distinctions between gendered language and practical effect were semantic minutiae. To talk of “God the Father” was to talk of male dominance of the female. God is male-centered and therefore-- for all practical intents and purposes-- a male god.
This is why Daly moved away from theology toward a restructuring of religion using feminine language. Interestingly enough, she did not view trans-sexuality as an analogous expression of God’s attributes, but rather as a surreptitious form of patriarchal oppression.
Thus, radical feminism has its religious roots in bigotry against 4th-wave gender equality. IMO, gender-neutral language-policing is designed to keep peace amongst various feminist factions rather than the general public.
Mmm - that is an over simplification of what a minority of Christians believe. Certainly not “most”. The Catholics, Orthodox, and all of the major Protestant branches have had rigorous critical debate on what is the Truth. Even those that shake out as Sola Scriptura and chose a more literal interpretations, have done so after debate. Their decision to go with a literal interpretation is still an interpretation.
Now, granted, a lot of the FOLLOWERS haven’t have these debates, but the founders and leaders certainly have. Indeed, the fact that there are so many Protestant flavors often stems from critical thought and debate being applied.
You touch upon a good point here. Philosophers concerned with language, such as Kant and Wittgenstein, would likely argue that apophatic statements of what God is not require us to admit the following: by using apophatic language we consider God’s existence itself a necessary attribute of God’s ineffability.
However, as Kant argued, the language of “is” requires a predicate (the copulative verb links subject and predicate; it is not a predicate in and of itself). Therefore, existence is not a predicate and the ontological argument fails: it proposes that God’s being must be greater than the idea of God’s being, and that consequently God exists because God is maximally greater in reality than in thought (per Anselm).
The ontological argument becomes a tautology: “God is because we think God is.” Wittgenstein would argue that this is a faulty language problem. In reality, there is no problem at all. The primary contemporary question of the revisited ontological argument then becomes whether or not existence is an necessary attribute of God.
But as you have suggested about God-language: if God exists, we must be able to think about the possibility that he exists (the “apophatic” negative relies upon the “kataphatic” positive statement of God’s existence).
If we can’t think about the possibility of God’s existence, then God’s existence becomes necessarily incomprehensible (the apophatic here is simply an ontological argument expressed in the negative). God’s existence would be irrelevant.
It wouldn’t matter if God exists or not. We literally couldn’t hypothesize about God. Occam’s razor would apply to matters of necessary thought. And thinking about something ultimately incomprehensible becomes ultimately unnecessary (Where did the idea of God come from? … Who cares?).
Thus, the question of God’s existence raises the possibility of what Paul Tillich described: “God is the ground of all Being.” In other words, God does not exist as Being, but rather as something Wholly Other to which Being points: offering an explanation of why something exists rather than nothing, or why we differentiate diversity of thought as meaningful.
This might appear instinctively true because meaningfulness lies on a boundary marker outside of our symbol-set, and cannot be proven true in any sense per Godel’s incompleteness theorems. In some small empirically-minded way, it might be possible to know what we don’t know when it comes to hope in an open-ended future.