I think we lose something important when we bow to the pressure from the feminist movement to produce what has been called gender inclusive language in the church. The name of God in the Christian tradition is “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” When we change this to, for example “Creator, redeemer, Sanctifier” we lose the relationship between the Father and the Son and reduce the name of God to modes of his action. This does damage to our understanding of who God is. God’s being is “being in relation” he only exists as the Father loves the Son and the Spirit is the form of that love. The gender of God is beside the point, the point is to preserve a properly functioning name of God. As Christians we accept this as dogma, a received truth. Messing with the name because some injured woman feels left out is disastrous. The solution is to explain that they are not left out, that they are included in the love of God and that the preservation of the name of God is essential.
When God becomes mother what do we do with the traditional language that tells us that the Father begets the Son? A mother does not beget. It is interesting that we do not get a push to rename the Son daughter because Jesus was a man. Does that mean that women find it hard to relate to him?
The writers of the OT knew that the name of God was of utmost importance and should not be messed with, we should acknowledge the same.

Peter Sellick

Relda,
If Newton was born today, would he be a brilliant cosmologist as you suggest? Quite possibly. But who knows? He might have opened the batting for Australia. If my auntie was a man, (s)he might have been my uncle. I think all we can say about Newton is what we know from history, and from what he wrote down.

Oliver,
With regard to comparing Ussher’s date with Kepler’s and Newton’s, all I was suggesting was that Ussher was no idiot. The three were obviously using historical criteria from the Bible, not celestial mechanics.

I compared the three largely because I get tired of people suggesting people like Ussher were dim or irrational. However, after reading Grim again, he wasn’t suggesting that. So my apologies to Grim for not reading him properly. It appears he was suggesting that the date is a long way out of step with current uniformitarian geology.

AJ,
I clicked on your links to past discussions from last year. I don’t really see their relevance. Anyone who clicks on them would see those discussion having different lines of thought to the present ones. But thanks for the links. If you want to explain their relevance here, the go ahead, by all means.

Thanks also, for referring to me as ‘coherent’. It’s a pleasant change from the adjectives I’ve received previously from your part. I’m not really looking for respect. I’d just prefer some common civility, as it makes for a much more pleasurable experience during discussion. No one’s paying me to come here.

With regard to the problems of Darwinism, it should first be said that a theory having problems is not all bad. All good theories have their problems. Creationism has its problems. It is problems that encourage further research.

As for the seriousness of problems with Darwinism, that could be a very long debate, and one already being debated at length by minds far beyond mine or yours.

The issue for me, as I was trying to get across to Waterboy and some others, was what if the problems with naturalistic theories are genuinely serious? Where would we go from there?

If there is evidence suggesting intelligent input, why must that be restricted from investigation? Are we able to discuss all possibilities? At what point in time did science discount or disprove the supernatural origin so that we can be certain that the natural option is the only one worth investigating? If it just a philosophical preference, then it is not hard science, is it?

Relda,
ID is not an argument from ignorance (though some arguments on this thread have been). It is not an argument based on lack of knowledge. In fact, the ID proponents are growing as we are discovering more intricacies in the cell through our advancement in nanotechnologies. Our detection and recognition of intelligence is already an accepted part of science in the fields of archaeology, and forensics, not to mention it being the basis of the Seti project. If we can’t detect intelligence when we see it (or hear it, in the case of the Seti project) then why do we spend millions on isproject?

crasby,
Of course, I agree - and so will most (educated) Christians - with the philosophy, even theology behind your assertion that “God comprises both masculine and feminine principles” (though I can see also Sells’ point).

However, my concern was not with this but with the language used in connection with the Gospels. So I still maintain that most Christians still pray “Our Father who art in heaven”. Nevertheless, I can understand that your congregation prefers other prayers (not the "Lord's"?) or just meditates without words, if I understood you properly. (The Catholic and Orthodox traditions have Marian devotion to account for God‘s manifestation of His/Her feminine side to humankind, and it was often this devotion - more than theological deliberations - that helped them to spiritually survive decades of Communist “dark ages” in Russia and Eastern Europe).

waterboy,
>> the problem of finding the 'right' pronoun for God is a peculiarly English problem<<
I don’t think it is peculiarly English that we use “he” when referring to “father”. Let me repeat, I am sure all the languages that the Bible is written in, and probably also all the languages that it was translated into, can distinguish between "father" and "mother", so all languages can be faithful to the Bible's symbolism when referring to God (And of the languages I - sort of - speak, only the Hungarian cannot distinguish between "he" and "she"). So the distinction between sexuality and gender is here irrelevant.

I am sorry you did not get the point of my language metaphor trying to illustrate that if you want to quote from the Gospels you have to follow some rules, although you might claim that you know better than Jesus how he should have called God when speaking to his audience. However, you should make it explicit that this is your own opinion (of how the Gospel should have been written or translated).

I did not claim Christians could be offended by your language, only that some might question your motives. I think I can see them now, though don’t want to question them.

I think Sell's point is pretty obvious. If we accept the virgin mother story, God pretty much has to be masculine... except then she wouldn't be a virgin, would she?
It could be argued 'divinely inseminated' had to be asexual, in order to leave Mary's virginity intact; although I'm sure David and Oliver could quickly point out that the word 'virgin' is probably just a misinterpretation of the Hebrew for 'maiden' or just 'young woman'. The 'Our Father' clause has a lot of tradition; and to a sceptic such as I, that's about all the bible is.
Dan, I thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt; from my reading, I gather James Ussher was an intelligent and thorough scholar. Like all scientists of every age (as already mentioned), he was working with limited evidence. it's idle speculation I know, but I sincerely doubt such a man would arrive at the same conclusions, if he did the exercise today.

Dan,

<<I clicked on your links to past discussions from last year. I don’t really see their relevance.>>

In the first two links, I debunked the YEC claims since you made the same claims to Grim, and in the last one, I demonstrated why it was wrong for modern day Creationists to claim the founders of modern science as one of their own, since you tried to bring Newton down to a modern day Creationist’s level (Or elevate modern day Creationists to his).

<<Thanks also, for referring to me as ‘coherent’.>>

Well, I meant it. If your posts weren’t coherent and so well-written, then I wouldn’t feel the need to point out the falsehoods in them.

<< I’d just prefer some common civility...>>

If I was to throw any old accusation around willy-nilly, then that would be rude. But I’ve never made a claim that I couldn’t substantiate.

I try to avoid using harsh terms too often, but that can be hard when you so flagrantly make claims you know are false.

I gave you then benefit of the doubt at first, but now that you’re continuing to make those claims that I’ve shown without a doubt are false, you are showing yourself to be dishonest. I know no other word for it.

Once is okay; twice is a mistake; three times is dishonesty.

<<As for the seriousness of problems with Darwinism, that could be a very long debate...>>

Not really. Because there are no detrimental problems. A few uncertainties, like with any theory, but nothing detrimental.

You’ve claimed there are serious problems, so you should be able to state what one of those is if you want to avoid being accused of intellectual dishonesty.

<<...and one already being debated at length by minds far beyond mine or yours.>>

On the Naturalist side? Yes, sometimes. But not on the Creationist side. Especially considering they are continuing to make claims that I’ve already debunked.

But we need to remember that religion is an emotional need and Creationists are emotionally dependant on believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Continued...