Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    i think 'believing in god' as directed or experienced by the various 
    churches i have attended or to which i have belonged has by and large
    had the effect of stifling my spiritual growth.
    

The following note *will* be offensive to many people, so don't read if
if you aren't in the mood to be offended.  It is, however, honest.
I provide no disclaimers, but I'll be happy to discuss this with anyone.
  
>    * Are those who don't believe in God unfortunate?
    
Yes.  I think so.  I do not believe in God, and sometimes I wished so hard
that I could!  It would be so easy, sometimes, to believe that there is a
big Mother (or Father) in the sky, taking care of me, even when I am too
old to be taken care of by my real problems.  It would be so nice to have
a concise, black and white list of rules to follow to make me a good person,
so that I wouldn't have to make my own ethical decisions.   It would be 
nice to have someone or something to blame for the bad things that happen
to me, or the mistakes I make.  It would take away the sadness if I believed
that I had a purpose, that bad things had meaning.  It would make me worry
a lot less if I believe that there was someone to step in and save the day
when it seemed like everything was doomed.

But I don't believe in God.  I am not able to have those reassurances
that there is a purpose, I am not able to follow straightfoward rules, and
I am not able to let myself be led.   I am not able to give up responsibility
for my life.  I am forced to build my own ethical system.  To find my own
meaning.  To make my own choices.  To own my own problems.  And sometimes it
is so hard, and so tiring, and I want to be a child again, to have some
great benevolent being take care of me, to relax and not worry and know that
everything has a happy ending.

But I can't. Because, all wishing aside, I know in my heart there is no one
to take care of me except me, and I am ultimately responsible.  And we are
all ultimately responsible.

I think the Judeo-Christian idea of an omniscient, omnipotent omnibenevolent
God is the product of the natural desire of human's to want a parent, and
so when they get to old to be parented, the invent a mythical one to make
them feel better.

D!
(The above is based on a classic Christian style God, the type you pray
to, and who sets down rules to follow, and sends youto heaven, etc...not,
for instance, the Pagan style Goddess, which is a very different concept.)
    

    When I posted the basenote I wanted honest answers. I did not say any-
    thing about the way I feel. 
    WILL EVERYONE PLEASE APOLOGIZING FOR THE "SHOCKING" VALUE OF THESE
    NOTES? I'm honestly not the lease bit surprised.
    
    Kate

    The manner in which your base note is phrased suggests that the
    existence of God is a given. This has the effect of putting those who
    don't believe in God either on the defensive, or at least sensitive to
    the fact that their responses violate an assumption. It's not possible
    for a non-believer to answer your questions directly (well, at least
    not the first). It also suggests that you may have only wanted
    responses from other believers.

    Perhaps if the question had been phrased along the lines of "Do you
    believe in God? If so, what has it meant, etc. etc." you wouldn't be
    seeing the kind of touchy response you've been seeing.

    In any event, as with any religious issue, people are likely to be
    fairly polarized on these questions.

    re: Paul:
    
    The title of the not is "What has God Meant to You". The answer could
    be, "Nothing."
    
    Why would anyone take offense to this note?
    
    Kate

    I don't think anyone would take offence, Kate; it's more a worry about
    *giving* offence to the basenote author (ie, you).

    I suspect that, regardless of whether your are a believer or an atheist,
    describing what God means to you depends a great deal on your image of
    God in the first place.  I think all of us have certain images,
    transmitted to us by our culture, and also, for those with a religious
    upbringing, by a given religious community.

    I have an image of God that is probably quite a bit different from most
    people's.  I like the comment by the Unitarian minister in New York
    City, who wrote that when someone tells him that they don't believe in
    God, he replies, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in.  I
    probably don't believe in 'Him' either."

    For many people, God is a sort of Divine Parent, who controls the
    universe and who grants us favors if we know just how to press the right
    Divine buttons when we pray.  Many people pray for the sick to heal, for
    example, on the assumption that the deity will mysteriously intervene in
    our physical universe and make the afflicted person get better.  For
    those believers, God has a certain meaning, but that is a meaning that I
    cannot relate to, because I believe that the act of healing, or dying,
    is a product of the natural laws of the universe, and not an act of God. 
    I also don't believe that the world is in God's hands; I believe it is
    in our hands, as human beings, to shape for better or worse.

    Does that mean that I don't believe in God?   Not necessarily.  It is
    possible not to accept the Divine Parent image and still believe in a
    concept of an Ultimate, Transcendent Reality, and through that belief
    find a source of meaning and purpose.  Rabbi Harold Kushner, who has
    written several books for popular consumption, writes of his own
    disbelief in the idea of divine intervention in the world--and yet, God
    is very important to his life.  I agree with Kushner's views.

    Furthermore, it is possible to believe in God without being concerned
    about the possibility of an afterlife, Feuerbach notwithstanding.  I am
    not worried about whether I will exist in some form after death; if I
    will, I'll find out when it happens, but there is not use fretting over
    it.  The world of the here and now is much more important to me.  That
    isn't to say that speculation about an afterlife isn't fun, but in the
    final analysis I would rather spend more effort at concrete activities
    to make the world in this life a better place.
        
    So what kind of images of God do I have?  I have three main influences:
    process theology (which is derived from the philosophy of Alfred North
    Whitehead), Feminist theology (from individuals such as Judith Plaskow),
    and the pluralist theology of John Hick.  
    
    What I like about process theology is that it rejects the traditional
    views of God as an impassive parent who runs the universe. According to
    John B. Cobb, Jr., and David Ray Griffin, who are proponents of  process
    theology, there are five principles of traditional Western theology that
    process theology rejects:  God as Cosmic Moralist; God as the Unchanging
    and Passionless Absolute; God as Controlling Power; God as Sanctioner of
    the Status Quo; and God as Male.  Process theology instead views God as
    creative-responsive love.  This gives God more of a dualistic image,
    which, by the way, runs counter to the traditional Christian doctrine of
    the Trinity.

    To me, then, God as creative-responsive love mirrors the best that we
    can be.  Through our own actions, we can express creative and
    responsive love, and thus, to use a Whiteheadian phrase, maximize
    enjoyment among all the creatures of the universe.  The view I endorse
    turns the tables on our relationship with the Ultimate; I do not
    believe that God acts in human history, but I do believe that humans
    act in God's history.

    Judith Plaskow, who is a feminist theologian within Judaism, argues for
    images of God as co-creator, lover, and wellspring of our existence.  In
    her view, God is not over us, but rather with us.  This too makes sense
    to me.  This is the kind of God that mirrors what I believe to be the
    highest of values. I also believe that traditional, hierarchical images
    of God can influence the way we construct our world.  If we work from a
    more egalitarian perspective to begin with, we humans can work together
    to build a more just and egalitarian world.  If we believe in a stern
    and authoritarian God, on the other hand, we will likewise make the
    world in that image.  The highest virtue, to me, is love, universal and
    unconditional, and that is a virtue that is reflected in my image of
    God.
    
    John Hick's views on God have also influenced me.  Even though he is a
    Christian theologian, he is a leading exponent of religious pluralism.
    He believes that, in general, none of the great religious traditions is
    superior to any other.  Instead, all all merely different paths to what
    he calls the Real, and all can serve to transform the believer from
    self-centeredness to Real-centeredness.  The Christian God, or Yahweh,
    or Allah, to him, are all simply divine personae of an infinite and
    incomprehensible ultimate mystery.  We can only interpret this infinite
    mystery in certain human terms, which various religious communities
    have each done in their own ways.  For some, the Real is an impersonal
    force (commonly in the Eastern religions), and for others the Real is a
    personal "God".

    This kind of religious pluralism recognizes that different individuals
    can legitimately take different spiritual paths.  I am uncomfortable
    with proselytizing, as well as the idea that any individual path,
    whether it be Protestantism, goddess-worship, atheism, or anything else
    is superior to all others.  As long as others don't tell me what I
    ought to believe, then I can respect the path that others have chosen. 
    The only exception to that is when a belief system does more than just
    serve just the private needs of its people, and instead moves beyond
    that to try to exert influence on intellectual or moral disciplines
    within society as a whole in ways that I oppose (such as when
    fundamentalists attempt to destroy modern science by attacking
    biological evolution.)  It then no longer becomes a personal spiritual
    matter, but a social and political matter, and I have every right to
    disagree with those efforts, since I am also a member of human society.
    I can respect Hinduism as a spiritual path, for example, but that is
    not a reason to excuse the caste system, which has often had a
    religious justification.
        
    I have found a set of beliefs that serve my purposes, for now.  Someday
    I may decide that I have no use for process theology, for example; that
    is my prerogative.  I may even decide that the concept of God no longer
    serves my spirituality.  As we grow, as individuals, we often change our
    beliefs.  I therefore do not believe that anyone who does not believe in
    God is "unfortunate".  However, for me, for the time being, the concept
    currently serves as a focus, as a way of projecting my spirit outside of
    myself, onto a more transcendent and purposeful reality.  I believe that
    I would be less fortunate without the concept of God.  But I would never
    presume that this must be true for anyone else.

    -- Mike

    re .0 Your second question.
    
    No. We have freedom of religion. Few have freedom *from* it. 

    
    re 0.
    
    1) I don't believe in the existence of God. Everybody else is welcome
       to believe whatever they want; as long as they don't push their
       beliefs on to me, I won't push my lack of belief on them;
    
    2) Being unfortunate is relative, like everything else in life (Hello,
       Ms & Mr Einstein). I don't consider myself unfortunate. I have known
       a lot of people who believed in God whom I considered unfortunate,
       not because they believed in God, but due to the circumstances of
       their lives.
    
   Joana
               

> are people who do not believe in god unfortunate? 

Some are. some aren't. but I do not see non-belief as the deciding factor.

>what has having god in your life meant to you?

sanity, love, and and source of hope.  My mother told me I was a punishment
from god.  But I was a pretty, clever, gifted, sunny little girl -- so I
turned back to 'my source.'  god listened to all of my plans and dreams and
never called me foolish for having them.  god never chastised me for seeing
a miracle in the emergence of a butterfly or for crying when I found a dead
squirrel in the road.

A simple life-line that kept an unwanted child from despair that grew with the
child into an affirmation of the value of each life in a world of diversity.

[as with most things in my life, the teachings of the Church were compared 
against my internal reality for fit .. arrant nonsense was dropped out of hand,
challenges were met and evaluated, and perfect fits were noted and gone past.]

  Ann

    I kind of look at God in the semi-parental someone-to-watch-over-me
    sense.  It's also someone to talk to when nobody else seems to be
    listening.  
    
    I'm a seventh generation Unitarian Universalist, and as such I've found
    comfort and happiness in the religion.  It's a very "live and let live"
    religion, so if someone else doesn't believe in God, that's fine by me,
    and no loss to them, unless, like D!, it troubles them that they can't
    seem to believe in God (come to think of it, I was speaking with a
    friend last night who feels the same way).
    
    Lately I've been able to find the divine in most people, but haven't
    been able to see it in myself.  I've picked up a wonderful book called
    (I think) "The Dance of the Spirit" - it's a whole way of looking at
    religion that seems more slanted towards women, each step being part of
    a dance that will help bring me closer to the particular spirituality
    that I seek.  Having been raised with a male God, I feel that by adding
    some female aspects to my concept of, or path to Divinity, it will
    enable me to come closer to feeling the power of spirituality within
    me, and I think that will be a good thing.
    
    -Jody
    

What D! said in .2.  I could not have said it any better.

But sometimes I wonder if there is another race of living beings in the universe
who know we exist, and are watching us.  I wonder what they think of our
society.

Lisa

My image of God comes out of Protestantism, the (cannonized) Bible, and
personal "experience."

I do not believe Christianity is a bunch of do's and don't's, although
with good versus bad, it seems this way.  What I mean to say is that the
life that Christ taught was to love unconditionally, which means that 
the attitude of the heart and mind determine the actions (do's and don't's.)
When the heart and mind is predecated on God (especially a God who is
not only good but the source of all Good), then one doesn't have to worry
about do's and don't's because their life is lived out of the good.

It doesn't mean that people become perfect immediately, nor soon.  My father
often says that if you can find the perfect church, don't join it because
it won't be perfect anymore.  It does mean that you become more aware of
the times when you do something "not good" and -act- to do good.

I also believe that if one seeks God and doesn't give up this search, 
God will find them.  One other thing I believe about God is that
no one can know everything there is to know about God but everyone can
always know more about God.

God is not a genie to me who owes me a smooth and easy life.  Adversity
nurtures growth.  Good things are nice, too!  

But God is not at my behest; I am at God's behest.  And still, 
my belief in God is that God chooses to become personally involved
in my life, even though God is Infinite in Power, Knowledge, and is ever
present.

That's a **fraction** of what God means to me.  I wonder what I mean to God?
I have my clues.

Mark Metcalfe

P.S.  Are those who do not believe in God unfortunate?  This is relative.
My belief system says yes.  But like some of the other respondants to this note,
I have seen some very sorry "Christians" and some very self-satisfied people.

[ I trust this is not preachy, but simply answering the base note. ]

Hmmm, I was feeling pretty cynical on Saturday.  Feeling more positive today,
and I would like to reanswer question two: I feel those who don't believe in
God are only unfortunate if they haven't the strength of self to live life
without the Great Parent.  

Those who do not believe in God have a tougher life set out for them.  This in
and of itself isn't unfortunate - but there  are some people who just can't take
that tougher course, and yet are also not able to believe in God.  Some people
can't see a Divine meaning in life, and also can't develop their *own*
meaning in life.  Some people recognize that there is no Parent to take care
of them, and so they accept the responsibility for taking care of themselves
and move on.  Others yearn for a Parent, and can't accept that there isn't one
even while not believing there is.

A good friend of mine says often "You're born, you live, you die, you rot
away, and thats it."  I think he's right, and I'm glad of it. He thinks he
is right, too, and it depresses the hell out of him.  Because he can't find
Divine meaning, he leads a meaningless life.  He is unfortunate.

I think on Saturday I was feeling like the second kind of person.  Today I am
feeling like the first, and today I feel *fortunate* that I can take full
responsibility for my successes, my mistakes, and my life. 

You're born, you live, you die, you rot away.  That's it.  So make the most of
it.

D!

    
    That ALL things work together for good.
    
    There are many things in my life that have not gone as I would
    have liked them at the time.  However, when I look back, if those
    things had not happened, I would not be where I am today.  Knowing
    that,  I can accept the *&^% that happens today as just part of
    the path to tomorrow.
    
    I see God as a parent-teacher not as a parent-ruler.  
    
    Our main purpose in life is to learn.  To learn from our mistakes as
    well as our successes.  I kind of like the saying, "everthing has a
    purpose.  Got will use you for something--even if it's just as a
    bad example".  I choose to be the student not the example.
    
    "It is not good that the man should be alone".
    
    From Genisis.  The first thing that God saw in the world that was 
    *not* good. All the *&^%$ that would happen in the world as a result 
    of the creation of man/woman instead of just man (or just woman) was 
    not as  bad as this.  We were not created to be solitary beings.  We 
    were created to be partners not not enemies.
    
    fred();

    I haven't decided if god and the church are the ultimate lie or
    if they belong to that category of things which just simply aren't
    ever going to be part of my life (like normal childhood, joyous
    holidays... those things that most people seem to have but i don't)
    On good days I'm envious of believers. On bad days I think they
    are dupes who are too lazy to figure life out for themselves..
    
    My own beliefs lie in wicca, which interestingly doesn't require
    you to believe in some higher power that controls your destiny.
    I believe that I am responsible for my own actions - especially
    in determining what is right/wrong.  If I happen to choose correctly,
    I will receive more benefit than I originally invested.  If I choose
    badly, that too will be returned.  
    
    In other words I have both the power to control my life and the 
    responsibility to do it well. It would be nice to have some kind
    of a guidebook to fall back on when things get confusing, but I
    get by.
    
	-maureen
    

    My views are similar to D!'s first reply, but also her second, on "my"
    good days, and Ms. Axtell's.
    
    I do not believe in deities. I believe in the relatedness of all things
    and entities within the cosmos throughout both time and space. I
    believe that ultimate freedom lies in our acceptance of the existence
    of relationships between ourselves and the rest of the cosmos, even if
    those relationships cannot be defined. I believe that we have control
    of our options within the framework of the relationships stated above.
    And taking control is every person's responsibility.
    
    Yeah, it feels d***ed lonely sometimes. And an awesome responsibility.
    But I tend to pity those who need a guidebook and a master. They really
    are "lost sheep". I am not a lost sheep. And I must also say that in my
    "up" days/weeks/months, when I have taken in and drunk my fill of
    life's responsibilities, I have been at the height of my creativity,
    sensitivity and ability to give to the world. And it is always a
    beautiful thing. NOT an ego trip.
    
    I believe that death and re-birth cycle, but I too plan to make the
    best of what I have here today. And that is me.
    
    
    - a Buddhist for many lifetimes to come...

    My view of how the world works is very close to .20, 'ren's...and D!'s.
    
    I think that there is more to this life than we can see or hear or
    measure and. although it may strange coming from someone who is a
    writer, there are Truths you can't put into words.  I definitely feel
    that organized religions -- because they usually try to codify Truth --
    have often missed the mark and have caused equal amounts of suffering
    for equal amounts of happiness.  
    
    For me, I do not believe in a "God".  My Catholic upbringing taught me
    that you either are RIGHT and you believe in the Catholic God; or you
    are WRONG and you are damned forever.  That's a bit too extreme for me.
    It doesn't seem real to me that I can choose to have my own vision of
    God (as many of my friends do), nor does it seem "right" to me to make
    this feeling I have that "there is a larger Truth" into an entity named
    God.  Personifying my spirituality isn't useful to me.
    
    I feel I have embraced the general teachings of most religions -- be
    good to others and don't get too stuck on yourself because you aren't
    the most important thing around -- but that for me organized religion
    is not the way toward happiness and truth.
    
    Spirituality is like looking at colors.  Four people can look at the
    color red.  All four can agree that it's red.  But each person is
    seeing that color a little bit differently ... in a way that is natural
    to them.  Our bodies process vision differently inside; to me it makes
    sense that our minds process inner concepts -- like Truth -- differently, 
    in ways that are natural for us.  
    
    So Sally Anne loves going to church and doing good things for people
    because that's what God wants her to do.  Great!  Lisa doesn't like
    going to church but believes in reincarnation and the circle of life,
    and that she has been put here on earth to learn something from this
    life.  Great!  Peter believes every word of the Bible literally and
    finds great joy in a all-loving Father, but is worried because he can't
    convince his family that they will die in Hell unless they believe
    every word Peter tells them.  (great but not Great!)  
    
    To answer the questions:
    
    "God" means nothing to me, but finding my own path to a feeling that
    there is a purpose to being alive means everything.  The exact path is
    different for each person -- for some it's organized religion; for
    some, it's personal growth.
    
    I don't feel sorry for people who don't believe in God because I am one
    of them.  I wish sometimes that I DID have a deep gut feeling that
    there is someone watching out for me as a friend and companion; but I
    DO NOT have that deep gut feeling.  It's not my shade of red.  I need
    to find my own way.
    
    Pam

    Once upon a time, I was an avid believer in "God" as an entity of
    some type; then, one day, while pondering on why humans can be so
    animalistic when each of us is supposed to have a touch of the divine
    in them, I tumbled to what now stands for me as a new symbol of
    spiritual growth in my life.  I considered an energy force
    "pouring" it's life into a body, plunking it down in the middle of a society
    where the mores are dictated by many concepts of what is right,
    what is wrong, and what is God.  I considered all the fences that
    we construct around this unlimited mind and energy source, and decided
    to set "God" free.  If, the universe is running as it "should" be,
    my life should run along more smoothly if I learn to work with it
    rather than against it.  Since that time, I have felt freer to see
    the good in all and can accept other's belief systems with no threat
    to my own.  I am at peace.
    
    Can I say, then, that I miss "God?"  No.  I feel better now than
    at any time in my life because I'm free to be myself and think my
    own thoughts without concern about whether it's "right" or whether
    it's "wrong."
    
    Barb

    I'm still a "seeker", I suppose. Every time I decide not to believe,
    something happens  to make me keep on believeing. I do seem to have a
    problem with Christianity. I don't have to many problems with
    Christians as long as they don't try to foist it off on me. 
    
    I think my problems with it all stem from when I was 12 years old and
    had to go through the instruction to join my church. I was the only one
    to show up for it and the minister (protestant) said that he couldn't
    be bothered with just one student. I got angry and told him that just
    because he was to lazy to bother with just me, then I was condemned to
    fires of Hell by our religions tenants. He got mad, but my father back
    me up and we never went back and he had been going there over 50 years.
    I've doubted ever since but can't quite be a total non-believer.
    Something always seems to happen to prove Her/His(?) existence to me.
    
                                  Phil

    I'm not sure that I believe in "God" per say - but I definitely believe
    that the mind  (soul?) exists separately from the body, and that it 
    separates at the time of death.  What happens after that could be very
    interesting, and I'm not at all afraid to find out for myself when the 
    time comes.  I believe that it will continue, and that there is a
    meaning to our life.  I also believe that goodness for its own sake is
    what's iomportant, and not because "God says".
    
    I guess I'm sort of rambling, because I'm the type of person who wants
    hard evidence before I believe something (this made my stay in Catholic 
    classes interesting!).  But I KNOW the mind exists separately, because
    I have experienced it.  It happened when I was only 7, but I will 
    forever remember the feeling of extreme peace, total calmness - it was
    incredible.  As a result, while I don't buy much of the teachings of
    organized religion, I HAVE to believe that there is more to life than
    "born, live, die, rot".  And as a side benefit, I will never fear
    death, while I hope that my life continues as long as possible (as
    long as there is quality), death is peace, and a separation from pain.
    
    Linda
    
    BTW, for those interested - I drowned, and watched a young woman carry
    my body out of the water - from above and to the side.  And was later 
    able to point her out to the person who revived me.  (And spooked both
    completely! 8-} )                                                 

Whatever one's personal beliefs about God may be, the fact that he's 
envisioned as male has meant *plenty* to each and every one of us. The
elimination of the feminine from the divine, something that was
accomplished many millennia ago, has sanctioned males as leaders of all our
other institutions - social, governmental, family. I believe that it has
also, on a psychological level, led to deep spiritual impoverishment for us
all. 

Dorian

re.25

I'd have to say that it all depends upon your point of view.

the concept of god being male or/and female was one of those that always struck
me as too bizarre to contemplate.

that some chose to have he-gods and other chose to have she-gods is well within
the realm of personal spirituality -- and many chose both.  it seems altogether
more likely that god acquired gender after the fact

  Ann

    For many years, I used to use the old joke, "You wouldn't like my God
    and She wouldn't like your God." Over the last few months I have
    thought more and more of how "right" this seems to me. It is from
    before the time I started to activly pursue replying in thsi Notesfile
    so I can't blame you people. :-) It just feels right and may have given
    me a more open mind in listening to woman and trying to understand and
    support them as human beings first and gender second. I not a full
    blown goddess-worshiper but it seems like a proper channel to study as
    I try to "raise my conciousness.
    
                                     Phil

There was a short-lived TV series on Showtime, which was based on a play called
"Steambath". I don't remember who wrote the original play, but the premise was 
that heaven was a steambath (with tiled floor, showers, changing rooms, lockers,
etc).  One of the principal characters was a hispanic janitor/custodian, who was
always mopping the floor, bringing out towels, tidying and generally keeping the
place going.  This janitor was (of course!) God.

 In a very real sense, that's my vision of "God"; not an impressive, omnipotent,
overpowering being, but more of a background figure, being ignored by those who
look for/believe in a powerful, vengeful, autocratic God.  

 I'm not sure if this makes a lot of sense.

						Nigel

"The mistake began when God was created in a male image....That makes life 
so perverted, and death so unnatural. We should have imagined life as 
created in the birth-pain of God the Mother. Then we would understand why 
we, Her children, have inherited pain, for we would know that our life's 
rhythm beats with Her great heart, torn with the agony of love and birth. 
And we would feel that death meant reunion with Her, a passing back into 
Her substance, blood of Her blood again, peace of Her peace! Now wouldn't
that be more logical and satisfying than having God a male whose chest
thunders with egotism and is too hard for tired heads and thoroughly
comfortless?" 

		-- Eugene O'Neill

re: .29

Sounds like gender-badness to me:

Male = unnatural death, perverted, thundering egotist, hard, comfortless

Not the God I know and love as a Father.  Not the father I hope to be to
my children.  Not the father my father was to me.

    re .30
    
    You are fortunate.
    
    Where's the Goddess that a woman might know and love as a Mother, that
    might help shape the mother she'd be to her children, as her mother
    was to her?

    
    i think .29 is very profound
    

I think someone else touched upon this, that being: people assigned gender
to God after the fact.  While I do not wholly subscribe to this notion,
I am prepared to acknowledge that God, being supernatural, is inadequately
described by His creations.  It is wrong in our language to refer to the
Creator as "It" (an object) and we only know us as him and her.  Perhaps 
it *is* and *was* cultural to default to "Him."  The Hebrew concept of God 
where one of God's names (titles) is not verbalized aloud because of its
holiness is closer to the best language reference we can use for the Creator
as the finite creation.

But my Christianity does not see using "Him" as a polarizing issue, nor a
devisive mechanism to dominate the other gender.  I regret those who share
my tag who have used it to dominate, or divide in the name of Christ.
Christ brought people together; shattered cultural norms of the day by
simply speaking with a Samritan woman [two no-nos for devout Jew], touching 
"unclean" women *and* men to heal them on the Sabbath [against Pharisitical 
law to work on the Sabbath].

My point here is that my God transcends our humanity.  In our attempts
to describe God, we use human inventions for ideas - words;
the finite (us) attempt to describe the infinite (God).  What is half of 
infinity? What is one billionth of infinity?  That's the God with whom 
I presume to claim a personal realtionship.  

My point in .30 was that .29 sounded male=bad and I reject that.

Mark Metcalfe

Does God need to be "created in an image" at all - never mind male or
female?

Perhaps that's where the real problem starts - this imaging
business...

john

    I was wearing black, the woman's color, and the sun felt like fire on
    my skin. I'd stopped watching the ceremony because it was basically
    boring. I shut my eyes and let the drum vibrate from the ground into my
    soul. The bells jangled with each movement of the dancer's feet while
    the gourd rattles made sounds at odd intervals. And I felt the Earth
    Mother.

    This was how I felt last week as a I watched a Tablita dance at Chochiti
    pueblo. And I wondered again at how any religion could feel it had a
    devine and eclusive right to be the one and only way. I do believe in a
    force in the universe. I've had out of body experiences a la Carlos
    Castenada, I've know joy as my quintet played a Bach fugue in a
    cathedral and the music flowed around the arches in glorious godsong.
    And I've felt rage and anger at whatever force could allow the
    inhumanity and gruesome horror which we humans have demonstrated over
    and over again.

    I feel those who can only believe in a rigid and unforgiving god are
    the unfortunate ones. Those whose world must be confined to nits and
    details of cultural conformity.

    As to what force may be in the universe, it's hard to say. As it is
    said of the Tao. The Tao that can be explained, is not the Tao. We feel
    it or we don't, no amount of Sunday school teaching or animal sacrifice
    will bring god to us.  liesl

	What shape is god?

	What shape is water outside the container?

	Is it male or female?

	What is thought?

	Who has the answers?

	There are only questions.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The Goddess is life, non-life and death
			The Goddess is
			There is nothing the Goddess is not
			The Godess is a term to symbolize the
				concept of the un-describe-able-ness
			of ....

Re: .36

Peggy's questions are also to the point.  God is beyond...

Mark M

P.S. water is spherical outside the container
(at least it's molecules tend that way)  :-)


P.S.S.  

I presume the use of the feminine attribute "Goddess" is to jar 
preconceptions?  It goes against some people's biases for
the "Chairman/Chairwoman/Chairperson" styles of language.  
Using "Goddess" certainly calls my attention to it.

	Ah, one who sees meaning in words - but is water the same as its
	individual molecules or is water the substance created by the
	combination of molecules if so what shape is it.  (I like the
	sfeerikle answer myself. %^) )

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Continuous

"Through making God in his own image, man has almost forgotten that woman 
once made the Goddess in hers. This is the deep secret of all 
mythologies..."

	-- Barbara Walker

There are lots of books now on the Goddess in ancient times, long 
before the envisionment of the God most of us are more familiar with today.

>"Through making God in his own image, man has almost forgotten that woman 
>once made the Goddess in hers. This is the deep secret of all 
>mythologies..."

>	-- Barbara Walker


>There are lots of books now on the Goddess in ancient times, long 
>before the envisionment of the God most of us are more familiar with today.

We started *this* discussion a long time ago (and I was referred to the
Religion notes conference at that time because of my opinions).

I do not know who Barbara Walker is.  But I can quote a book, too, that states 
that God made man (mankind - humans - both men and women) in His image (the 
image of the spiritually divine; not necessarily gender-specific). (We have 
already discussed the assignment of the pronoun and the inadequacy of words
to describe God.)  The scholars think the author of the text was Moses.

The difference between Barbara and Moses is that Barbara has men and women
making their God, where Moses has God making men and women.  When we talk about
having underpinnings from a God, I want one who is greater than my own
self-sufficiency, not a creation of my own.

And to provide even more balance, there are lots of books now on the God of
ancient times.

     -- Mark Metcalfe

    re .40 -
    
    My entry was in response to a specific question. Perhaps we need a
    separate topic on the Goddess and what she has meant, and now means, to
    people (if anyone's interested).
    
    Dorian

    Mark,
    
    The real experts -- people who are knowledgable about history,
    archaeology, linguistic analysis, things like that -- do *not*
    believe that Moses wrote any of the Bible.  This subject is
    called the Documentary Hypothesis of the Higher Criticism --
    and now you know why you were directed to the Religion conference:
    It is an enormous subject, and only very little of it could even
    be claimed to be about the relationship of women to men and to
    the deity.
    
    						Ann B.

    This is a nit, but scholars do *not* think that the author of Genesis
    was Moses (at least no serious scholars believe that anymore.) 
    Although there is some debate about the specifics concerning the
    authorship of the Pentateuch, the scholarly consensus is that there
    were several authors of those five books of the Bible.  The most
    commonly accepted view is the documentary hypothesis; this would mean
    that the author of the first chapter of Genesis was "P" (the Priestly
    author), and the author of the second chapter was "J" (the Yahwist).

    For more information, I strongly recommend the book "Who wrote the
    Bible?", by Richard Friedman, who is a serious scholar.  This book
    summarizes very well the history of scholarship in this area, presents
    the current scholarly consensus, and then offers some of Friedman's own
    theories on some specific issues.

    -- Mike

I apologise for my natural confusion. I can only envision one God so I thought
the use of the term Goddess was merely using a feminine pronoun to mean the
same deity; that is, pushing the pronouns.  

What I *think* you mean by Goddess now is a *different* diety.
Each of us has chosen to believe as we do.

You may be right in creating separate notes.  This note is taking a
[perhaps natural] turn towards *describing our diety* rather than what
He/She/They *means* to us.  Maybe that in itself would be an enlightening
exercise; sort of a study of different religions.  But then again,
maybe it belongs elsewhere.

Often I hear and read that [my] God is not like that.  Or [my] God
would never..., or any God that would... is no God of mine.

It is clearer now, that we are operating from different frequencies.

Mark Metcalfe

Re: .42 and .43

Does Finnis Jennings Dake qualify as a "serious" scholar?  What 
does that mean anyway?  Scholars disagree; [mine] are "serious" and 
"real" and [yours] are not?

I am *glad* you pointed it out as a nit, because it was certainly only
meant as a nit to the main point of my other note.  Moses' authorship
or lack of it was not the point; the quotation (or paraphrase to be 
more specific) was the point.

Thanks for the alternate views, though.

    Well, Mark, this isn't simply a matter of alternate views on the
    subject, but it is also certainly *not* a matter of *my* scholars being
    serious and *yours* not being serious.  For one thing, legitimate
    scholars disagree among themselves on many issues.  The definition of
    scholarship has nothing to do with the content of one's views.

    Richard Friedman defines a biblical scholar in this way:

    	There are many persons who claim to be biblical scholars.  I refer
    	to scholars who have the necessary training in languages, biblical
    	archaeology, and literary and historical skills to work on the
    	problem, and who meet, discuss, and debate their ideas and research
    	with other scholars through scholarly journals, conferences, etc.

    As for the authorship of the Pentateuch, here is what Friedman
    identifies as the approach of current scholarship:

        Until the past generation there were orthodox Christian and Jewish
        scholars who contested the Documentary Hypothesis in scholarly
        circles.  At present, however, there is hardly a biblical scholar
        in the world actively working on the problem who would claim that
        the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses--or by any one
        person.  Scholars argue about the number of different authors who
        wrote any given biblical book.  They argue about when the various
        documents were written and about whether a particular verse belongs
        to this or that document.  They express varying degrees of
        satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the usefulness of the
        hypothesis for literary or historical purposes.  But the hypothesis
        itself continues to be the starting point of research, no serious
        student of the Bible can fail to study it, and no other explanation
        of the evidence has come close to challenging it...

        In our own day, new tools and new methods have produced important
        contributions.  New methods of linguistic analysis, developed
        largely within the last fifteen years, have made it possible to
        establish relative chronology of portions of the Bible and to
        measure and describe characteristics of biblical Hebrew in various
        periods.  In the simplest terms, Moses was further from the
        language of much of the Five Books than Shakespeare was from modern
        English.  Also...there has been an archaeological revolution, which
        has yielded important discoveries that must now figure in any
        research into the Bible's authors.

    -- Mike

Re; .46

> The definition of scholarship has nothing to do with the content of 
> one's views.

Agreed.  What I am saying is that we both can find people who meet the
same definition of scholar who have drawn different conclusions to their
research.
 
You have chosen to believe the scholar in whom you find the best 
reason.  I take nothing away from that except my option to believe 
another scholar's conclusions (or part of it), and the right for us 
both to opine on the subject.  Your choice in scholars and the
adoption of the scholar's view is the alternative view to which I
referred.

Moderators and readers: I promise to leave this rathole of scholarship
and authorship from here out.  If I get back in this note, it will
adhere (as best I can) to the subject.

    re: .47
    
    sanctuary much ;)
    
    -Jody
    

    My reply to .2 (An atheist speaks from her heart)
    I love your honesty and understand what you miss, not because you want
    to miss it but because you need something to make you whole. That is 
    FAITH. If
    there is nothing like a Superior Being, then, why to struggle in this
    life? Is there nothing more than plain, brute "surviving"? No, I guess
    not, and if I am wrong, I want to believe, to have faith, that there is
    more to LIFE than just live a few years, wither, and die... animals are
    mortals, humans are INMORTAL, there is the difference and it is not ME
    who says it, but all religions I know of.

    .49 - 
    
    So the only possible point to life is to live longer?  Life with a
    death at the end is intolerable, and life which continues indefinitely
    is thoroughly fulfilling? 
    
    That sounds more like getting rid of the fear of death than like giving
    a reason "to struggle in this life".  It certainly doesn't have much to
    say about what we should DO with all this free time. 
    
    Ray

    re .50, yeah, I agree.
    
    re .49,  your mention that "animals are mortal" and "only humans
    are immortal" is an example of one of the many things that originally
    turned me away from religion.  I'm really not sure I'd want to be
    "immortal" if I couldn't have any animals around to share it with!
     I have never forgiven organized religion for not valuing animals
    as anything more than tools to be used by humans.
    
    Lorna
    

	I don't know where to start.

	First off:

		Very few religions claim that humans are immortal.

		In fact some do claim that immortality
		can be gained by humans BUT most of the earth-based
		religions value all living things equally and some
		infact hold mountains and rivers as sacred.

	Secondly:

		Living on this earth is rather pleasant when one
		is allowed to "just" live.  Surviving in a man-made
		hostile environment is not pleasant.

	Being is a cycle of birth, life, death and then re-birth.

		There is no reason that humans should be an exception
		from this cycle.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Being - all things equal

re: .49 (DUGGAN::MAHONEY)

>    I love your honesty and understand what you miss, not because you want
>    to miss it but because you need something to make you whole. 

No.  I am afraid you've missed my whole point.

I *am* whole.  Without what *you* refer to as faith.  Someone once had a
personal name (sorry to pick on you, dear) that said "Faith is believing 
even when common sense tells you not to."  (Or something.)  That spoke worlds
to me of the nature of faith - and reaffirmed my decision to reject it,
at lesat the type of Faith that Christianity and that p_name spoke of - I
do have faith, I have faith in myself, I have faith in those I trust, etc.
When faith does *not* mesh with common sense, it is a signal that SOMETHING
is wrong, and if anyone tells me I am not a good person for questioning then,
I think their values are confused.  Any faith that conflicts with reality is
misplaced faith.

>    If there is nothing like a Superior Being, then, why to struggle in this
>    life? Is there nothing more than plain, brute "surviving"? No, I guess
>    not, and if I am wrong, I want to believe, to have faith, that there is
>    more to LIFE than just live a few years, wither, and die... animals are
>    mortals, humans are INMORTAL, there is the difference and it is not ME
>    who says it, but all religions I know of.

Again, you missed my point.  I, like you, want to have meaning in my life.
Unlike you, however, I find that meaning within myself, and from the natural,
not the supernatural.  I think it is *harder* to find one's personal meaning
that way, and that was the source of my semi-lament and not being able to
follow what I consider The Easy Path.  But I *do* have meaning, and my life 
is more than "live a few years, wither, and die."

I don't believe humans are immortal, any more than animals.  And it *is* you
who says it.  I just saw you say it in the paragraph above.  And that is my
whole point - it doesn't *matter* what religion says.  It matters what each
of us, individually says, and only to ourselves.  The fact that one or many
or all religions say one thing or another does not make it "proof".  The only
thing that matters to you is what you believe, and to me is what I believe.

I don't think the sort of blind faith that Christian-type religions push is
necessary to feel whole.  For me, it is not possible.  And when I am feeling
strongly, happy, healthy and self-identified, I don't even *want* it to be
possible, because I think that people who find their *own* truths in life
are (if you can use this word in compative form) *wholer* than those who find
truth in "Faith".

One of my favorite songs is "Freewill" by Rush...
"You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice,
But if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill,
I will choose all by myself, I will choose free will."

That pretty much sums it up.

D!

    I think D! is absolutely correct in her criticisms of irrationality in
    religion.  The resistance to science and Higher Criticism by
    fundamentalism, which is usually so much more vocal than other elements
    of religious belief, certainly tends to make all religion look bad, as
    if it is all steeped in dogma and hostile to reason.  One of the
    reasons why I find postmodern theology (and particularly process
    theology) interesting is that it addresses the problems that it
    perceives in the secular world view, without resorting to an
    irrational, pre-modern, fundamentalist perspective.
    
    As far as immortality goes, it is interesting to note that Charles
    Hartshorne, an early proponent of process theology, did not believe in
    personal immortality.  And although I won't rule out the possibility
    myself, I am not much concerned about it either.
    
    Process theology also values the creative urge as the ultimate reality
    of the universe.  Thus, in this view, God is not the all important
    master who manipulates us and the universe, and, in fact, process
    theology opposes the view that God created the universe ex nihilo. 
    God, the ultimate actuality, coexists in relationship with creativity,
    the ultimate reality; the universe is therefore not contingent, as most
    of Chrisitian theology typically proposes.  Process theologians believe
    that God operates by persuasion instead of force, serving as a divine
    lure for possibilities as we make our creative responses.  In this
    view, God also responds to what we do, rather than merely being an
    impassive force over us.  Thus we are free creatures in the universe.

    -- Mike

Re: 53

>"Faith is believing even when common sense tells you not to." 

I think Archie Bunker (seriously) said this in one of the All in the Family 
shows, and it is an incorrect definition of faith.  Faith, as I understand it, 
is believing in the inevitability of future performace based on past experience.  

For example, I have faith that the chair I sit in will support me tomorrow
when I come in because it always has.  When transferred into religious
connotations, faith is believing the inevitiability of the fulfillment of
prophecy and the like.

>I don't think the sort of blind faith that Christian-type religions push is
>necessary to feel whole.

I respect your right to think as you do.  I do not know what you mean by
"Christian-type" and I am personally uncomfortable when anything is "pushed"
and the Christiany I embrace is not pushy.

Re: 54

>    Process theologians believe
>    that God operates by persuasion instead of force, serving as a divine
>    lure for possibilities as we make our creative responses.  In this
>    view, God also responds to what we do, rather than merely being an
>    impassive force over us.  Thus we are free creatures in the universe.

I also believe God operates by persuasion and not force (in most cases).
I also do not think God is impassive.  We are free to believe or not;
we are free agents and as such, assume the responsibility for our decisions.
That is my faith.

Mark Metcalfe

    The quote "Faith is believing even when common sense tells you 
    not to" was a line from "Miracle on 34th St."
    
    Steve

>For example, I have faith that the chair I sit in will support me tomorrow
>when I come in because it always has.

This doesn't fit at all with the definition of faith I have encountered in
numerous Christians - where "faith" meant beliving what they told you without
proof.  "Why" I would always ask.  "Because the Bible says so" was the 
inevitable reply.  "But what makes you think the Bible is right" I counter.
"It was written by God" they defend.  "How do you know?"  "Faith."

>  When transferred into religious
>connotations, faith is believing the inevitiability of the fulfillment of
>prophecy and the like.

I don't see the correlation between the definitions.  What does the fufillment
of a particular prophesy have to do with drawing inductive conclusions from
past experiences?

>I respect your right to think as you do.  I do not know what you mean by
>"Christian-type" and I am personally uncomfortable when anything is "pushed"
>and the Christiany I embrace is not pushy.

By Christian-type, I meant religions that paint a picture of God, and a
seperate, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being, who created the
world and the people in it, and guide/control/effect/etc the world and those
living in it.  As opposed to other religions which are very different in
form, like Pagan religions, Buddhism, etc.  "Christian-type" was not meant
as an insult; I would normally have used "Judeo-Christian" but that has been
objected to is the past, and also seems to exclude other, similar religions,
like Moslem.

As for whether your personal religion is "pushy" I can't say.  I have been
exposed to numerous sorts of "Judeo-Christian" religions, and each relies
strongly on this concept of "faith", and *pushes* its members to have faith,
and believe what they say.  I didn't mean "push" on outsiders, but "push" it as
a fundamental concept of that religion.

D!

    I've always thought this poem by Dickinson described faith quite well.

    To lose one's faith surpasses
	The loss of an estate,
    Because estates can be
	Replenished, - faith cannot.

    Inherited with life,
	Belief but once can be;
    Annihilate a single clause,
	And Being's beggary.

    re .59 There is a third answer to the question, "Why struggle?"
    
    Because we *can*. Because we can grow, learn, improve the world
    around us. Because it doesn't take a god to come up with a new
    idea, a new viewpoint, it takes one *person* with the strength
    of self to persue that idea in the face of all the negative
    BS that gets thrown in their way. (A lot of which comes from
    tradition-bound hierarchies, like established religions, BTW)

RATS!  I just entered a note.  Found an error.  Went to create a reply by
supercopying the note into the reply then deleting the other note and I
deleted before copying!

>This doesn't fit at all with the definition of faith I have encountered in
>numerous Christians - where "faith" meant beliving what they told you without
>proof.  "Why" I would always ask.  "Because the Bible says so" was the 
>inevitable reply.  "But what makes you think the Bible is right" I counter.
>"It was written by God" they defend.  "How do you know?"  "Faith."

Many people accept the teachings of others and precious few are actual
students of their faith (translate that doctrine).

As for proof:  One cannot prove that a clock will tick off the next second
until it actually does.  But based on past performance, it is reasonable to
assume that the clock will indeed tick off the next second.  Where that
analogy breaks down is that the clock, being temporal and finite, will
eventually stop.

As for proof of the Bible, it is *ultimately* a "leap of faith" based on 
numerous factors (for example, the historical parts of the Bible are 
quite accurate), to which some people aver, "based on what I know or have
experienced, I believe in the authenticity of this Book and its message."
This is a choice: to believe.

  Incidently, I do not believe in the complete infallibility of the
  Bible document, but do believe in the complete consistency of its message.
  To illustrate: as a protestant Christian, I may believe that Adam and Eve
  are a symbolic reference of a truth, or as a fundamentalist Christian, 
  I may believe that Adam and Eve were actual people.

  Whether Adam and Eve were symbolic or actual or had navels is inconsequetial 
  to the message: the corruption of perfection through disobedience to God.

In regard to "Pushy" Christians:

"Pushing" within a church organization I see as educating those who choose
to associate with the organization (and their children, by default) in 
regards to the tenets and beliefs of the organization.  When the pushing goes
external, things get a bit more sticky.

I know pushy Christians and I believe that in many cases, they are genuinely
concerned about the state of "fallen people." (quotes used to indicate
church jargon).  The Crusaders and the Inquisition (to name just a couple) 
are a blight on the name of Christianity and do not reflect the Christ I 
study in the Bible.  Many of us who claim Christianity should be more studious 
of our namesake so that we get it right.  Christianity is meant to be 
attractive because it is supposed to based on love.

D!, we disagree on the final outcome.  But (Listen up Christian) I know
that one cannot cram the "Message" down one's throat.  Signing a contract
while someone holds a gun to your head invalidates the contract.  That's
the point of free agency: freedom of choice.

Thanks for your views and allowing me to express mine.

    Does anyone care to eleborate on the difference between religion and
    God? 
    
    Kate

the way I see it, the difference between religion and god is largely a matter 
of personal definition.

I have encountered many who feel that religion is a perversion of and an insult
to god.  they define god as a being of infinite power and goodness and religion
as the manifestation of evils justified in the name of god.

others have stated that religion is an abdication of mind and will to arbitrary
rules that benefit the powerful in the name of god, and that god is non-existent

still others maintain that religion is a direct outward manifestation of god's
purpose.

and no matter what people believe in their hearts, the semantic gyrations alone
fill a wall of scholarly volumes in my father's library.

many would say that I have no religion, but I say that they are mistaken. my
religion is that of self-determination and a quest for knowing and learning --
and god is wherever I seek -- not guiding, but being.

it seems to me that in the end religion is what one _makes_ of god.

  Ann

    Religion is a way of believing that there is some form of structure or
    succor or supplement to our everyday work and play.  I think it's a
    manifestation of some people's philosophy that helps them to formulate
    or explane "a bigger picture" of their life/self/universe, and how it
    all works together.
    
    Some people may choose to put God in their religion, some people were
    raised with God in their religion, some religions don't have a God, in
    some religions we *are* God.
    
    -Jody

    I agree with the last two, but I think some of the wording difficulty
    is in choosing a two-way split.  I see THREE somewhat related concepts:
    
    SPIRITUALITY  
      The acknowledgement that there are forces we can't see or measure
      in our lives.  Paying attention to inner feelings and messages.
    
    RELIGION
      A group of people agreeing about a structure for their spirituality.  
      Involves methods for paying attention to inner feelings and messages
      (praying, meditation, meetings); usually also involves worship and
      giving thanks to a source.
    
    GOD
      An identification of a source for spiritual feelings; in many
      religions, a personification of that source into an entity.
    
    Pam
    
    (Can you tell I wrote a large glossary last year?!)

Thanx Pam. I haven't gotten anywhere near religion or god [sic]. I'm working on
spirituality.
	Mez

    You're welcome.  :-)
    
    The religions I have a problem with are the ones where the structure
    and methods become more important than the underlying spirituality, of
    course ... or where the EXACT definition of "god" matters more than
    listening to inner feelings and messages.
    
    My brother believes in literal interpretation of the Bible and has
    become so narrow about his religion that he is losing touch with his
    family and non-church friends.  I can't talk to him except with great
    tentativeness.  My Catholic upbringing made church a chore and belief
    in "God" illogical to me.  Too many things to accept unquestioningly,
    too many "facts" without support, too many conflicting attitudes.
    
    So now I'm winging it and learning slowly to "feel" rightness about
    people, things, decisions, ideas.  
    
    Pam

I agree with .63, .64. and .65 and that's coming from someone who defines
his spiritual relationship differently than the authors of those replies.

I also agree with .67 in that when rituals and rules usurp the "underlying
spirituality", then religion departs from God.  Like many things, religion
can be good or bad for you (and those you affect) depending on how you use it.

Mark

    
re .53, D!:
    
>Someone once had a
>personal name (sorry to pick on you, dear) that said "Faith is believing 
>even when common sense tells you not to."  (Or something.)
    
    My previous personal name was:
    
    "Who needs evidence when one has faith?"
    
    Is that the one you remember?
    
    Also, "Faith is believing even when common sense tells you not to"
    is too long to be a personal name in Notes.
    
    

>    "Who needs evidence when one has faith?"
    
>    Is that the one you remember?
 
Nope.  But I was told the "Faith is believing when common sense tells you not
to" is a line from <It's a Wonderful Life?>  Yours there expresses pretty 
much the same sentiment, but I never saw it. If I did, I probably would have
assumed it was meant in a facetious tone - sorry if that isn't right.
   
>    Also, "Faith is believing even when common sense tells you not to"
>    is too long to be a personal name in Notes.
 
Yes, but it isn't for a mail p_name.

D!

Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.features
Subject: Women's movement takes root in Judaism
Date: 12 Oct 90 05:02:49 GMT
 (Commentary)
 
	At the end of August, the Executive Council of the Cantors Assembly --
the organization of liturgical leaders of Conservative Judaism -- voted
29 to 1 to admit qualified women to its membership.
	The vote ended three years of study, discussion and sometimes
rancorous debate and underscored how Jewish women, like their
counterparts in Protestantism, are taking long strides toward equality
in their religious institutions.
	A strong feminist theology is also developing with Judaism, as it is
within both Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, although in all three
cases the perspectives being developed by feminist theologians are
having a harder time gaining a hearing within the institutions.
	One of the best examples of the challenge of feminist theology to
Judaism is in a new book by Judith Plaskow, ``Standing Again at Sinai,''
(Harper & Row).
	Plaskow, an associate professor of religious studies at Manhattan
College, is also co-editor of the Journal of Feminist Studies in
Religion.
	In the book, Plaskow presents a sharp critique of Judaism's
patriarchal tradition -- a tradition that has been at the center of all
Jewish self-understanding and that stands at the center of the Jewish
Bible.
	That traditional self-understanding has long meant that feminism and
religious Judaism were polar opposites and, as Plaskow argues, forcing
every Jewish feminist to define herself in split terms, to ask herself,
``Am I a feminist or am I a Jew?''
	At the same time, however, Plaskow writes that she has decided to
remain a Jew despite its patriarchal tradition not because ``there is
some non-sexist 'essence' of Judaism'' to take hold of but rather to
attempt to change the very nature of Judaism.
	In ``Standing Again at Sinai,'' Plaakow is arguing that Jewish
feminists must go beyond the question of equal access as in the fight
for admission of women to the Cantors Assembly.
	She makes her case by looking at a number of key concepts, including
how to imagine or think about God and the use of language about God in
Jewish life; the question of Jewish history, especially as contained in
the Torah and the recovery of women's history; and the problem of
community, including the role of the state of Israel in the Jewish
understanding of community.
	On the question of God, for example, Plaskow argues for an
appreciation of ``a plurality of images for God,'' an argument that is
consistent with the Bible itself although the diversity of images
present in the Bible have been pretty much eliminated from both
Christian and Jewish worship and theology.
	In the chapter on Israel and community, Plaskow looks at a number of
issues, raising questions not just about Israel's treatment of the
Palestinians in the occupied territories but also about the difference
between Eastern European and Oriental Jews and how these rifts also
influence male-female relations in Israeli society.
	``It seems,'' she writes, ``that the Jewish experience of oppression
has led not to the just exercise of power by Jews in power, but to the
Jewish repition of strategies of domination.''
	``The many forms of oppression to which Jews have been subject, from
denial of fundamental rights and outright expropriation of resources, to
lack of respect for Jewish culture ... are recapitulated within and
between various groups in Israel.''
	Plaskow's book is an important contribution to the continuing
religious dialogue that is Judaism but it is also one that non-Jews,
both men and women, can learn from.