...Continued

We can all be irrational and live in denial when emotions overtake us, no matter how intelligent we are.

<<...what if the problems with naturalistic theories are genuinely serious? Where would we go from there?>>

It would be irrational to jump to a supernatural conclusion with no evidence. You’re suggesting that scientists, give up, and resort to the ‘God-of-the-gaps’ logical fallacy.

But this is a non-issue anyway as there are no serious problems with evolution.

<<If there is evidence suggesting intelligent input, why must that be restricted from investigation?>>

And how would one prove intelligent input without resorting to the ‘God-of-the-gaps’ fallacy?

<<Are we able to discuss all possibilities?>>

Of course!

Even Dawkins admits that it would be unscientific of him to say that Gods absolutely did not exist.

But Creationists waste their time trying to disprove evolution without even looking for evidence for their own theory. Remember, it’s a false dichotomy to think that if evolution is false, then ID is true.

<<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?>>

The supernatural cannot be disproven. But Creationism lost in the halls-of-science long ago and has been debunked repeatedly.

<<In fact, the ID proponents are growing..>>

Quantity means nothing in a world with a rapidly increasing population. What matters is that the percentage, and the percentage is declining rapidly.

<<...we are discovering more intricacies in the cell through our advancement in nanotechnologies.>>

The intricacies of a cell are irrelevant since the first cell was extremely basic. There are some good theories that have had various stages of development repeated in labs.

In Expelled, Stein debunked a strawman by claiming that scientists believed that a complex cell just sprang into existence. He did this partially by editing the Michael Ruse interview to look like Ruse was claiming that complex cells just popped into existence on the back of crystals.

But I gave you a run-down of the development of the first cell (which you couldn’t respond to) at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7684#121835.

Sells
Why does this topic, more than any other, elicit such intemperate language from you?
The tone of your post,quite familiar now,is angry and destructive. In fact your post illustrates perfectly the way your credal fundamentalism serves to perpetuate the patriarchal and misogynist spirit of the ecumenical councils.

"The solution is to explain that they are not left out, that they are included in the love of God and.."That is so patronising! What arrogance makes you think that women do not already understand the nature of language or that they would need you to explain anything to them.

There is ample Biblical precedent for using many images in order to do justice to the 'image of God'. There is also precedent for changing the the 'name of God'(Elohim/YHWH).

The fact that the New Testament carries a dominant image of God as Father does not preclude the use other images.Matthew describes God as "like a mother hen gathering her chicks".

The Bible uses predominantly male images for God largely because the humans who wrote it reflect the patriarchal society in which they lived. Today it is anachronistic and counterproductive to limit ourselves to those images. One of the inevitable consequences of having women involved in the Church at all levels is that they will bring new understandings,new images and new language to the business of theology,liturgy and the life of the Church.

I am reminded of an incident in which an elderly surgeon abused my wife for 'taking up a place' in medical school and asserted that women should be excluded from practicing medicine.He was a pathetic creature,quite obviously out of touch with the times and in serious denial of the reality that females were excelling in medical school and going on to be extremely competent medical practitioners.

The Church will be a better and 'more authentically human' community with women operating at every level and God will be more accessible as we apply a greater variety of images to our understanding of him/her.

Your argument is no more compelling than that of the old surgeon clinging to a bygone era.

Sells,
My acceptance of the simultaneous masculinity and femininity of God dates from at least 40 years ago and arose from contemplation of my experience of the Divine. Neither “the feminist movement” nor any other ideology had anything to do with it. I do not myself make a point of using “gender inclusive language”, but because of my experiences I can easily understand why people would want to do so. And I’m sure that many of them are not simply “bowing to pressure from the feminist movement” but are intellectually acknowledging their own inner experiences of God. Thus the Holy Spirit moves us. Revelation is ongoing and sometimes makes necessary a major break with past practice. I can’t predict to what degree gender inclusive language will finally take hold nor am I sure whether it is advisable, but I would not oppose it simply on the grounds of tradition.

George,
I still pray The Lord’s Prayer with my congregation, as well as the other prayers in our liturgy. I was merely pointing out that “She/Her” is often used in relation to God by some of our clergy and that this does not necessarily offend a lot of the laity. I accept your point about Marian devotions in the Roman and Orthodox churches. Such devotions are also a valuable part of the lives of some Anglicans.

The civilised man is man with no distinction. His greatest attribute is that he remains tolerable to his fellow human beings and keeps within his community’s customs and comfort zones. The process of feminization is deeper than most would presume. In our western world, where even beauty must be eliminated as a distinguishing marker, women, as well as men may claim, it is all skin-deep or in the eye of the beholder but then will clamor to possess it and agree on its attraction.

The redefining of a male as a caretaker and homemaker - the direct result of man’s feminization, where he has submitted to ‘authorities’ more powerful than himself has accepted a certain, contemporary, mode of behaviour. The world of our feminized populations negates the difference between the common male and the common female - it is becoming more and more difficult to discern. Uniformity at work.

The social myth is that femininity and masculinity, supposedly taught in schools and by parents, are behaviors that are learned rather than innate. This comes to be the communal tale that reinforces the absurdity that sexuality and gender roles are something which must be trained into a mind, when the opposite is true. It is ironic that women find men attractive who are, relatively, uninterested in them as individuals – they find men unappealing who are infatuated with them - the “nice guy” they want to remain friends with but have no actual sexual interest in. The “nice guy” makes himself constantly available as an alterative, a second choice, a settling, or as a device. His utility stems from his reliability. It is well known that confidence is a very attractive attribute, especially in males - few comprehend why it is so.

Masculinity is now often reduced to a facsimile. Engorged muscles and swollen penises used as allegorical references to what is no longer there or not allowed to express itself fully. “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The fact that we argue about whether God exists and whether he is male or female indicates that we are firmly stuck in the mode of analogia entis, the analogy of being. With Barth's analogia fides and the later analogia relationalis this whole conversation may be seen as a misunderstanding of the Christian concept of God. Calling God Father does not indicate that he is a male. God has no gender, he is not like a man or a woman. The objectification of God has brought us to the present theological stand off. God is present in his act, he is present when the sacraments are celebrated and the Word faithfully preached, he is present when love abounds. He is not a body, not a person, not a being, he is pure attribute as the Pauline blessing demonstrates so well. The Father is love, the son grace, the spirit company.

This is what is at stake when we mess with the name of God in the name of modern egalitarianism, the dogma of the church is no mere tradition, it is the soul of the faith and if we lose it to petty considerations we will be very much at a loss.

Sells

Father is an image used for God in the New Testament. As such it is metaphorical language not meant to be taken literally. (I cant believe I actually need to point this out). The birth narratives of Matthew and Luke are quite obviously mythic in nature and not to be taken literally or historically. God is not literally a Father and didn't really do any 'begetting' of anyone. 'Father' is just one image of the Divine among many. Since we cant speak directly about God we must speak in metaphors and images but no one image can serve as a complete and satisfactory 'description' of God.

The codification of the Father image in the creeds of the Church does literary violence to the text of Scripture and is probably the greatest single mistake in the Church's history. The subsequent violent imposition of the creeds on the people of Europe amounted to one of the most evil episodes in European history. As illustrated by Sell's recent post the creeds are, to this day, used to justify prejudice, discrimination and violence.

Sell's aggressive resistance to a simple pronoun exemplifies the deep anxiety of a Church defending the indefensible. Quite simply, the creeds represent a corruption of the message of Jesus and the Church cannot admit that. History, however, liberated from ecclesial domination, is now telling the story and every day new evidence emerges of the deeply corrupt and violent reality of the internal workings of Churches.

'Father' is not the name of God. Jesus knew how to tell stories and use metaphors. His use of this image in no way compels us to believe that God is literally his father and doesn't preclude us from using other images or from adapting our language to suit new circumstances