Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Is it foolish to call God, “Father”?

As above, so below says the Lord’s Prayer.

God’s first legal decision has him demanding that Jesus be a human sacrifice to rescind God’s own condemnation of his own creation.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

Quite good for Christians, --- while quite evil to others who do not condone human sacrifice, --- just because a God whose reality has yet to be shown demands it.

The main point is; would any father or mother who reads this O. P., ever choose such a sacrifice, given that other venues were available as they were with God?

Your own answer says that you would expect a Father to find another way and that such a God is not a worthy God.

Do you agree that to call God, Father, is to insult the word father, --- as no human father would be so evil.

Is it foolish to call God, Father?

Regards
DL

 

[Angry Floof]

I'd say yes, it is foolish, given that one of the effects of Christianity is infantilization. If you want to cultivate immaturity and dependence, and discourage self sufficiency and intellectual development, creating a magical father would be a great way to do that.

 

[Perspicuo]

The OP presupposes that all Christians are "orthodox". Some of them are so universalistic in their outlook and feeling, they carry around a bible (when they do) as a totem not a manual.

For many Christians, spirituality is a sentiment, and "daddy" is one very intense sentimental word. For them Jesus merely taught human beings to see God as father instead of a mean mad fukker with a big stick. The myth is so alien to them it would suprise and probably scare the daylights out of them to figure out what it really implies. As myths do.

Man, people can't even tell Red Riding Hood or Pinocchio are sadistic stories down under, much less dilucidate the twisted parts in the cherished myths. People just hover over those parts and try to extract the good elements for inspiration.

It's what helps them, soothes them, and uplifts them when the going gets tough, as it usually is in life (1) (2) (3).

 

[jonJ]

Is it foolish to call God, Father?
DL

You can call him anything you like -- he still won't answer.

 

[Sarpedon]

Less foolish than it is to call some guy wearing a dress 'father.'

 

[Lugubert]

Is it foolish to call God, Father?

I think she's used to it, but it's still silly.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not foolish at all. God has a nutsack. A big, wobbly, fuzzy nutsack. Hubble even picked it up. As for the Big Bank and the Horse Nebula...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I believe Mary said he preferred to be called "Daddy". Kind of sick when you think about it.

 

[braces_for_impact]

As a kid that grew up without a father, the concept of the heavenly father was sold to me very vigorously by the church and the pastor, who knew I struggled with the lack of a dad at the time. I now view this as emotional manipulation. They tried to replace the pain of a real missing father with the heavenly father, and although I drew a false comfort from it for a time, in the back of my mind I knew it was no substitute for the real thing. As a kid it actually caused me more harm. Rather than work through the assorted issues I had by not having a father that was present, they tried to have me focus on the strawman they had created in my life.

A real father allows for two way communication. A real father is there to help and support his children. A real dad is himself enriched by his relationship with his kids. It's a two way street; a journey you take together. As much as people claim to have a close personal relationship with Jesus, it's empty, devoid of anything actually meaningful in comparison to a real relationship. A real relationship involves give and take, responsibility, effort, risk, joy and pain. God as your father is more like a one dimensional character in a novel.

 

[Perspicuo]

As a kid that grew up without a father, the concept of the heavenly father was sold to me very vigorously by the church and the pastor, who knew I struggled with the lack of a dad at the time. I now view this as emotional manipulation. They tried to replace the pain of a real missing father with the heavenly father, and although I drew a false comfort from it for a time, in the back of my mind I knew it was no substitute for the real thing.

Taken as a whole, what you said makes little sense. It seems you glean upon the fact that it was a well-meaning effort to put a bandage on your lack of father issue, but you quickly brush it aside (actually, you set it aside even before you mention it). It was either an effort to manipulate you or an effort to help you overcome your issues and come out of them with increased inner strength. If it didn't work or it was misguided, that was not their intention. People actually can be genuinely mistaken.

There are good people in the world, and some of them participate in one or another kind of religion.

 

[braces_for_impact]

As a kid that grew up without a father, the concept of the heavenly father was sold to me very vigorously by the church and the pastor, who knew I struggled with the lack of a dad at the time. I now view this as emotional manipulation. They tried to replace the pain of a real missing father with the heavenly father, and although I drew a false comfort from it for a time, in the back of my mind I knew it was no substitute for the real thing.

Taken as a whole, what you said makes little sense. It seems you glean upon the fact that it was a well-meaning effort to put a bandage on your lack of father issue, but you quickly brush it aside (actually, you set it aside even before you mention it). It was either an effort to manipulate you or an effort to help you overcome your issues and come out of them with increased inner strength. If it didn't work or it was misguided, that was not their intention. People actually can be genuinely mistaken.

There are good people in the world, and some of them participate in one or another kind of religion.

Forgive me if I was unclear. I don't think it was intentional. I do believe they were honestly mistaken. Yes, it's still manipulation, even if the intention was to do good.

 

[Underseer]

You cannot prove he/she/it even exists, so it is exactly as foolish as calling Valdemort "father."

 

[Perspicuo]

Yes, it's still manipulation, even if the intention was to do good.

Yes, it is. And also I've noticed a lot of what parents do, even without religion, is manipulative, such as, "Your mom made it just for you and now you won't eat it ". I figure it helps form empathy and gratitude (and nutrition all the while).

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I'd say yes, it is foolish, given that one of the effects of Christianity is infantilization. If you want to cultivate immaturity and dependence, and discourage self sufficiency and intellectual development, creating a magical father would be a great way to do that.

+1

That is why the churches want us born again. Children are easier to lie to than adults who are less gullible.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The OP presupposes that all Christians are "orthodox". Some of them are so universalistic in their outlook and feeling, they carry around a bible (when they do) as a totem not a manual.

For many Christians, spirituality is a sentiment, and "daddy" is one very intense sentimental word. For them Jesus merely taught human beings to see God as father instead of a mean mad fukker with a big stick. The myth is so alien to them it would suprise and probably scare the daylights out of them to figure out what it really implies. As myths do.

Man, people can't even tell Red Riding Hood or Pinocchio are sadistic stories down under, much less dilucidate the twisted parts in the cherished myths. People just hover over those parts and try to extract the good elements for inspiration.

It's what helps them, soothes them, and uplifts them when the going gets tough, as it usually is in life (1) (2) (3).

Indeed. When one just absorbs lies and refuses to think of them, it soothes the savage beast.
Thinking and finding truth is so stressful.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

As a kid that grew up without a father, the concept of the heavenly father was sold to me very vigorously by the church and the pastor, who knew I struggled with the lack of a dad at the time. I now view this as emotional manipulation. They tried to replace the pain of a real missing father with the heavenly father, and although I drew a false comfort from it for a time, in the back of my mind I knew it was no substitute for the real thing. As a kid it actually caused me more harm. Rather than work through the assorted issues I had by not having a father that was present, they tried to have me focus on the strawman they had created in my life.

A real father allows for two way communication. A real father is there to help and support his children. A real dad is himself enriched by his relationship with his kids. It's a two way street; a journey you take together. As much as people claim to have a close personal relationship with Jesus, it's empty, devoid of anything actually meaningful in comparison to a real relationship. A real relationship involves give and take, responsibility, effort, risk, joy and pain. God as your father is more like a one dimensional character in a novel.

Well put.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

As a kid that grew up without a father, the concept of the heavenly father was sold to me very vigorously by the church and the pastor, who knew I struggled with the lack of a dad at the time. I now view this as emotional manipulation. They tried to replace the pain of a real missing father with the heavenly father, and although I drew a false comfort from it for a time, in the back of my mind I knew it was no substitute for the real thing.

Taken as a whole, what you said makes little sense. It seems you glean upon the fact that it was a well-meaning effort to put a bandage on your lack of father issue, but you quickly brush it aside (actually, you set it aside even before you mention it). It was either an effort to manipulate you or an effort to help you overcome your issues and come out of them with increased inner strength. If it didn't work or it was misguided, that was not their intention. People actually can be genuinely mistaken.

There are good people in the world, and some of them participate in one or another kind of religion.

True to some extent but what does a good person need with a church that is constantly lying to it's sheep?

Regards
DL

 

[abaddon]

Seems like a weak connection between a term of endearment and respect, "father", and the horror at an act of sacrifice.

I do get it… Why respect a father that'd do that to his son? But then, I don't have the literalist mind that I think it takes to be horrified by that. And somehow what follows the suffering and death keeps not getting mentioned…

I'm bothered that anyone reads or is told these stories and only takes the lesson "I'm dirty, I'm sinful" from them and then doesn't pursue what follows upon that; they just stay stuck in self-denigration. It depends on how the "sinful" is understood. We are, after all, bizarre animals that have a hard time connecting our minds to reality, more than a bit lost inside ourselves. And on top of that we're doomed to a hard life followed by an ugly, all-too-final death. So, yeah, in a sense we are messed-up animals really needing a means of changing our existential condition. Trying to attain "something more" is understandable, however misguided you may judge the Christian solution to the very real problem.

The sacrifice lead to a transfiguration, which was the Christ's glorification. The story doesn't end at death. And it's completely obviously symbolic. It doesn't matter if the gospel-writers intended it to be taken for historical fact, it's still symbolic anyway. In dreams death never means anything other than change or re-configuration. At the mythmaking level of mind, nothing ever finally dies. So Jesus' sacrifice does not mean the annihilation of a living human being; and the thought of that is probably what horrifies the literal-minded humanists here.

The Abraham/Isaac story makes me cringe a bit because its message is "Obey no matter what" (though I can see it in a more gracious light than that too). But the Jesus story of his death and transfiguration does not make me cringe, since it's saying "There's something more glorious in the universe than a dumb food-to-mouth living followed by death". Agree or disagree, it's not so ugly or horrific or evil as made out to be.

So, to sum it up: don't leave off the transfiguration when talking about how horrible this human sacrifice seems to you.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Transfiguration has nothing to do with the immorality of vicarious atonement.

Jesus can shape shift all he likes and morals would not be effected at all.

Scriptures still say that we are to pay our own way and not take an immoral free ride on a human sacrifice.

Regards
DL

 

[abaddon]

Transfiguration has nothing to do with the immorality of vicarious atonement.

So Jesus' death wasn't "legal" in your view. But, again, it wasn't really a death anyway.

Scriptures still say that we are to pay our own way and not take an immoral free ride on a human sacrifice.

Cool. But maybe the symbolism of ego-effacing change (or "sacrifice") is instructional in that endeavor.

I'm not Christian and am not invested in this particular story. I'm just knocking the literal-minded horror at a myth that has a sorta-kinda "death" in it.