Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: NCC Inclusive Lectionary - (nf)
Message-ID: <3614@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 9-Nov-83 00:23:25 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.3614
Posted: Wed Nov  9 00:23:25 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 6-Nov-83 03:08:58 EST
Lines: 31

#R:hou5d:-71600:uokvax:8300013:000:1244
uokvax!emjej    Oct 30 21:04:00 1983

You have a point; I should have chosen one of the
examples such as Jesus referring to God as "father
and mother," perhaps (although English has a generic
word for that, namely "parent," which would seem a
lot less clumsy).

Also, I should state that Jesus's gender does not
affect my belief (or more accurately, lack thereof)
one whit. (On the other hand--if I were a Christian,
then if I accepted the argument that Christ's gender
was unassociated with his essence/soul and hence
gender-specific references were unreasonable, then
I would be driven logically not to use gender-specific
references for any human, as they all have immortal
souls.) My interest, such as I have any, in the
Scriptures, is in its reflection of and shaping of
the actions and culture of a goodly portion of this
earth for two millenia (and probably a few more).
The fact of gender, and of referring to a deity
for whom gender-specific references is dubious at
best as male, tells me something about the culture
that does so (and this one too, one must admit).
Every generation tries to reinterpret Christ in
view of its attitudes and the fashions of its time;
I think Albert Schweitzer pointed out the fallacies
of so doing better than I ever could.

			James Jones