Striking "man" from creed?

[JimO]

katherine2:

I have it on good authority that the Blessed Mother did not speak the English language.

And there’s no gender in Aramaic or Greek? Admittedly I am no linguist and have not researched it, but I sense that if I did and found that Mary did not say “she” in reference to God, you would be unmoved.

You still haven’t answered my questions. I’m honestly not trying to provoke an argument. I really don’t understand the objections.

Blessings

 

[Franciscum]

katherine2:

Okay, we udnerstand that you get jollies belitting those who disagree with you on contemporary issues and like to think that Mary takes yoru side. But my question still remains.

You mean contemporary NON-issues…

 

[shannon_e]

"Then Mary said: ‘My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit finds joy in God my savior, for he has looked upon his servent in her lowliness…’ " (Luke 1:46-47).

I have a few questions for you -

Why is there an objection to using the term “man” or “men” as a “species” reference?

What is the objection to seeing God as Father?

Can anyone really object to referring to Jesus as “He” since He was born male?

Just curious.

I also would like to hear the answers to these questions. Especially this one:
“What is the objection to seeing God as Father”?

 

[katherine2]

JimO:

And there’s no gender in Aramaic or Greek? Admittedly I am no linguist and have not researched it, but I sense that if I did and found that Mary did not say “she” in reference to God, you would be unmoved.

You still haven’t answered my questions. I’m honestly not trying to provoke an argument. I really don’t understand the objections.

Blessings

You and I have the same question. One poster here suggested Mary did not pray using inclusive language. It seemed to me that if that theory is based on the fact that our English language Bibles read that way, this is not a very sound conclusion.

I guess as none of us here have been able to answer this, we really don’t know how the Blessed Mother prayed and shouldn’t be making statements without the facts.

Reminds me of the story of a knucklehead Governor of Texas (no, not the one from the late 1990s) who vetoed a bill to create a Department of Modern Languages at the University of Texas with the words “If the English language was good enough for Jesus Christ, its good enough for the people of Texas.”

 

[Nichevo]

Franciscum:

You mean contemporary NON-issues…

Exactly!

Greek Pronouns

He = Αυτή

She = Αυτός

It = Αυτό

You’re on your own finding the Aramaic as I don’t have access to it here.

 

[JimO]

Katherine,

Maybe I was unclear. We don’t have the same question. I tried to answer the question about Mary’s use/non-use of inclusive language. These are my questions.

"I have a few questions for you -

Why is there an objection to using the term “man” or “men” as a “species” reference?

What is the objection to seeing God as Father?

Can anyone really object to referring to Jesus as “He” since He was born male?

 

[katherine2]

Sorry, JimO, I missed your full post.

You asked:
What is the objection to seeing God as Father?

I don’t know. It doesn’t bother me.

Can anyone really object to referring to Jesus as “He” since He was born male?

It doesn’t seem a very well based objection.

Why is there an objection to using the term “man” or “men” as a “species” reference?

I guess the complimentary question is “why is there an insistance on using it?”

 

[shannon_e]

katherine2:

Sorry, JimO, I missed your full post.

You asked:
What is the objection to seeing God as Father?

I don’t know. It doesn’t bother me.

Can anyone really object to referring to Jesus as “He” since He was born male?

It doesn’t seem a very well based objection.

Why is there an objection to using the term “man” or “men” as a “species” reference?

I guess the complimentary question is “why is there an insistance on using it?”

No, I think the real question is: Why change it, then?

 

[mommy]

katherine2:

.

I guess the complimentary question is “why is there an insistance on using it?”

We need some word to denote “people as a race” “Man” is the name of the race of “people” It wasn’t a problem until we had to come up for a word for everything to make every one “happy” that they weren’t being offended. I think perhaps people shouldn’t go looking for offense where non is intended.

 

[rlg94086]

katherine2:

Sorry, JimO, I missed your full post.

You asked:
What is the objection to seeing God as Father?

I don’t know. It doesn’t bother me.

Can anyone really object to referring to Jesus as “He” since He was born male?

It doesn’t seem a very well based objection.

Why is there an objection to using the term “man” or “men” as a “species” reference?

I guess the complimentary question is** “why is there an insistance on using it?”/**QUOTE]

Um…because that’s the way the creeds are written, and we’re not supposed to change the liturgy on our own. Please see the earlier posts from Trelow and kmktexas.

If you want this changed, you need to ask for it to be changed in Vatican III and let the Bishops argue about it. We are free to have opinions, but it’s not our place to change things on our own.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[JimO]

katherine2:

Sorry, JimO, I missed your full post.

You asked:
What is the objection to seeing God as Father?

I don’t know. It doesn’t bother me.

Can anyone really object to referring to Jesus as “He” since He was born male?

It doesn’t seem a very well based objection.

Why is there an objection to using the term “man” or “men” as a “species” reference?

I guess the complimentary question is “why is there an insistance on using it?”

Fair enough. Thanks.

 

[Nichevo]

katherine2:

You and I have the same question. One poster here suggested Mary did not pray using inclusive language. It seemed to me that if that theory is based on the fact that our English language Bibles read that way, this is not a very sound conclusion.

I guess as none of us here have been able to answer this, we really don’t know how the Blessed Mother prayed and shouldn’t be making statements without the facts.

I’m presently working to get the Aramaic pronouns but, it being a Friday afternoon, the Prof may be gone already. As to how Mary prayed, we have to look at Mary within the time she lived. She was a Hebrew peasant girl of between 12 and 16 years of age at the time of Christ’s birth ca. 3 B.C.

Hebrew society at the time was socially patriarchial and religiously matrilineal with the monotheistic deity being identified as a male father figure. Civilizations at this time identified almost everything of importance (especially their deities) with either a masculine or feminine identity within the indigenous language.

It is highly unlikely that anyone would have used a gender neutral pronoun in reference to God (considered heretical) and even more unlikely that a girl of limited education in a geographically isolated area would be developing an ecclesiology or theosophy that was gender neutral or that gave a social equality to men and women in a public forum (the Temple) when women and children did not have an identity separate from their husband/father. That’s why it’s unlikely Mary used inclusive language.

 

[shannon_e]

katherine2:

Sorry, JimO, I missed your full post.

You asked:
What is the objection to seeing God as Father?

I don’t know. It doesn’t bother me.

Can anyone really object to referring to Jesus as “He” since He was born male?

It doesn’t seem a very well based objection.

Why is there an objection to using the term “man” or “men” as a “species” reference?

I guess the complimentary question is “why is there an insistance on using it?”

No, I think the real question is: Why change it, then? For what reason(s)?

 

[katherine2]

Nichevo:

I’m presently working to get the Aramaic pronouns but, it being a Friday afternoon, the Prof may be gone already. As to how Mary prayed, we have to look at Mary within the time she lived. She was a Hebrew peasant girl of between 12 and 16 years of age at the time of Christ’s birth ca. 3 B.C.

I appreciate your research. I just wish others would research first and post second.

Hebrew society at the time was socially patriarchial …
It is highly unlikely that …a girl of limited education in a geographically isolated area would be developing an ecclesiology or theosophy that … gave a social equality to men and women … That’s why it’s unlikely Mary used inclusive language.

If those are the reasons (basicly, that the culture and language did presume women’s inferiority) it sdoesn’t make a very good case for the preservation of such.

 

[Nichevo]

katherine2:

I appreciate your research. I just wish others would research first and post second. If those are the reasons (basicly, that the culture and language did presume women’s inferiority) it sdoesn’t make a very good case for the preservation of such.

I know that I can come across as rather sarcastic and caustic but, I do my best to have the facts to back up my diatribe. I didn’t intend to belittle you earlier, I was poking fun at how much the language debate has consumed so many lay people and religious thinkers and writers. (Look at some of the work by Rosemary Radford Ruther and Elizabeth Johnson.)

 

[rlg94086]

Katherine2,

Do you believe it is okay to change the creeds on your own?

Robert.

 

[katherine2]

Nichevo:

I know that I can come across as rather sarcastic and caustic but, I do my best to have the facts to back up my diatribe. I didn’t intend to belittle you earlier, I was poking fun at how much the language debate has consumed so many lay people and religious thinkers and writers.

No offensive taken. I agree with the silliness of the language debate. I’m sure some smart person with a computer could do a study of how people today speak the English language. I’m happy to go with the form that matched standard English. I think both sides should agree to take this debate out of the emotional world of religion and leave it up to the linguists.

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

If those are the reasons (basicly, that the culture and language did presume women’s inferiority) it sdoesn’t make a very good case for the preservation of such.

I don’t know if I’d arrive at that conclusion so quickly or easily. St. Paul tells us in Galations that God sent the messiah to us “when the fullness of time had come.” (Gal 4:4). If God chose this period of “patriarchy” and “women’s inferiority” because He saw it as the “fullness of time,” then the language, customs, and mores should speak something to us.

I think both sides should agree to take this debate out of the emotional world of religion and leave it up to the linguists.

I’d rather leave it up to Holy Mother Church.

Fiat

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

I don’t know if I’d arrive at that conclusion so quickly or easily. St. Paul tells us in Galations that God sent the messiah to us “when the fullness of time had come.” (Gal 4:4). If God chose this period of “patriarchy” and “women’s inferiority” because He saw it as the “fullness of time,” then the language, customs, and mores should speak something to us.

You must make the Amish look modern.

I’d rather leave it up to Holy Mother Church.

Fiat

Until she does something you disagree with!

 

[buffalo]

katherine2:

Do we know this? How do we know this?

Because it’s a recent innovation.