I think that's contextual, as the use of the feminine in respect of the Divine is evident in Scripture, but there was some confusion over the orthodox Christian concept, and various Platonic, gnostic and pagan ideals.
OK. But the Catholic Church defines the predicates 'Father' and 'Son' as signifiers of an external relation, not an inhering nature, and that should not be overlooked.
No, that's not right at all. Our Lord's gender is according to His human nature, not His divine nature.
I would say that the offence is against wisdom, not God, and wisdom is invariably portrayed as feminine, and of God (not a God), in Scripture.
Please remember that the Bible addresses man who is more informed by his passions than his perspicacity; it speaks in human language, and when it refers to God in human terms, the (informed) commentaries always reflect man back upon his own nature.
Christ left the commandment to love thy neighbour, and this was not contingent nor conditional. So if you hate a sinner, you break that commandment.
So your God is the God of Infinite Hate?
There's nothing merciful about eternal suffering ... what could be worse?
I agree with you. God is a god that is love. I believe hell is more like gods mental hospital than a place of suffering. God hates the sin not the sinner.
Why do people consider the death penalty harsh then? Isn't that the same as ending someone's suffering in prison?
Hadiths weren't as preserved as Quran. And they were written kindof in the same way the NT was, records of what people heard and saw Prophet Mouhammed (PBUH) do. The difference is that it is documented who is claiming that a Hadith was said or done. Some Hadiths we consider strong. The books of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, among others, is a collection of these. Some of these chains are strong as in Abu Bakr (a companion) Heard Prophet Mouhammed (PBUH) say something. Or saw him do something.
I dont believe that is right. The thought is that they would provoke a man like saying men have no self control. I do know that a woman dresses in black and walks behind a man to symbolize the imbalance that occurred due to the fall but I think progression and a restoration of that balance would be for her to walk beside her man and her not have to wear the symbolic garb.
Umm... not exactly... Not a bad try though. At least not in Islam. I believe this were true in the Torah, and Pauline texts as to the reason women are supposed to cover.
she can be forced to. my sisterinlaw was stationed in the middleeast and the women were not allowed to leave the base unless they wore the full covering or they could be harmed. so to say its considered to be chosen it may be that way in america but not so in some middleastern countries. this is reality over there.
We are agreeing on certain aspects, but you bring in the governments and people of the middle east. I would say in most Muslim countries, that they have imposed law that women MUST wear Hijab including headscarf and concealing clothing. In Saudi, I believe a veil is even required. This is not what I am referring to. I am referring to the religion. The state might force people to follow, that does not mean Islam does so. I personally have said many Muslims seem to focus too much on what if what I think is good is bad, and too little on what if what I think is bad is good. I've heard the phrase "what if Allah asks you on the day of Judgement about..." (insert situation here). And it is a legit concern. But people take it too far. Things like what if Allah asks me why I allowed my wife to sit in the front seat of my car. This is not a sin, by any measure. It is said that it is better for a man to lead, which from Hadith and Tawheed we derive it to be a security issue. That doesn't make it a commandment, which many govts seem to want to force. Forcing people to do what is right leads them to hate what is right. It is another form of oppression, which is clear that Allah hates oppression.