Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Can you elaborate some on the part where you said that the Goddess
    can help men with their feminine side?
    
    Marc H.

Also see related notes:

11  Feminist theology
256  Using Gender Terms to refer to God
573  When God was a woman

Peace,
Richard

    and one can only hope this one doesn't get de-railed like 573.*

All attempts by humankind to approach God other than through the revelation He
has made of Himself through the People of Israel and by His Son are imperfect.

	**********************************************************
	* Hear O Israel, I am the Lord thy God.  Thou shalt have *
	* no other Gods before me.                               *
	**********************************************************

The Christian cannot, must not, disobey this First Commandment.

/john

    
    Patricia,
    
    Thanks for starting this topic! You state the three views very
    eloquently in .0. I hope I have time to add some thoughts - for now,
    though, with reference to your mentioning why the Goddess might be
    important to men, I'd like to recommend a wonderful book - called
    (surprise!) *Men and the Goddess* by Tom Absher (1990?) (who's also a
    fine poet). The book is mostly a survey of ten "greats" of western
    literature - Gilgamesh, the Odyssey, one of Virginia Woolf's novels, one
    of Tolstoi's, a play by Shakespeare, also Huckleberry Finn - from the
    viewpoint that the main male character is seeking to make contact, in one
    form or another, with his feminine side, and in the cases when he can
    do so, he becomes whole. So it's sort of Jungian in inspiration. I guess 
    it made sense to me mainly 'cause I think our culture has so suppressed 
    the feminine side of almost everything, for so long...anyway, the book 
    also has a general introduction on the Goddess. Right now I can't
    recall if he relates the subject explicitly to Christianity, or not. 
    
    I found the book at Unicorn Books in Arlington, MA but I've also seen it 
    in some other bookstores.
    
    Again, thanks,
    
    Dorian

    re: .4

re Note 654.4 by COVERT::COVERT:

> 	**********************************************************
> 	* Hear O Israel, I am the Lord thy God.  Thou shalt have *
> 	* no other Gods before me.                               *
> 	**********************************************************
> 
> The Christian cannot, must not, disobey this First Commandment.
  
        Of course, we must then explore the question "is the
        'goddess' another god?"

        I note that even the most conservative members of this
        conference appear to be able to accept that what the Moslems
        call "Allah" is not another god but the same god as the God
        of Israel.

        So it would appear that simply having a different theology of
        the godhead does not make the god one worships another.

        So why is the 'goddess' different -- especially if one's view
        of the 'goddess' is that the 'goddess' is the one true
        godhead (as opposed to the polytheistic view)?

        Bob

    >    -< when does a different understanding become another god? >-
    
    A question I was pondering myself, Bob.
    
    Richard
    

    Is anyone defining and declaring "goddess" to be a Christian perspective?
    What are these beliefs?  Where are they written?
    
    I hold the traditional belief shared by Judaism, Christianity, and
    Islam that God revealed himself to Abraham and that the book of Genesis
    contains the account of this revelation.
    
    I hold the traditional belief shared by Judaism and Christianity that
    God revealed himself to Moses and the book of Exodus contains the
    account of this revelation.
    
    What's the common ground shared between Christians who believe in what
    the Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, and Orthodox Churches teach and a
    Christian who addresses "goddess" in heaven?

    .4  Good quote.  Doesn't specify the gender of the Deity.  However,
    it does certainly suggest a male-gendered Deity.  I suppose I'm
    to gather by this quote that God was telling Israel their God was
    a virile, testosterone-laden, task-oriented sort who never stops
    to ask for directions?
    
    Richard
    

    I have to wonder if the people whose knees are jerking in this topic
    even bothered to read Pat's note in .0.  Pat made an interesting and 
    serious effort at suggesting how we can categorize the various ways
    that the name Goddess can be used in a theological context, and to what
    extent these various ways can be consistent or inconsistent with
    monotheism or polytheism.  They are actually quite interesting ideas
    about how the term Goddess can be used to express actually different
    theologies, spanning the range from monotheism, neo-paganism, or
    polytheism.  Obviously, a polytheistic use of the term is inconsistent
    with Christianity.  However, it is not necessarily the case that the
    term is used in the  context of polytheism or paganism, as Pat pointed
    out, and yet it is this polytheistic or paganistic use that many
    critics of the term seem to so simplistically assume.

    -- Mike

>        I note that even the most conservative members of this
>        conference appear to be able to accept that what the Moslems
>        call "Allah" is not another god but the same god as the God
>        of Israel.

Just as we accept that the God that French Christians call "Dieu" or that
German Christians call "Gott" is not another God, but the same God as the
God of Israel.

In addition, the Moslems loudly proclaim that their God is the same God;
in fact, some of them object to the word "Allah" being used in English
references to Islamic concepts of God.

Yet many people who would prefer to use the term "Goddess" also trot out
books like "When God was a Woman" -- closely linking their references to
the "Goddess" with paganism.

re testosterone

The God of Israel is a genderless God.  His revelation was made through
nature, the Hebrew People, the Prophets, and His Son, Jesus.  They did
not use the term Goddess; neither should we.

/john

Suggestion:

Crosspost this topic in the Bagels conference and see what sort of response
you get there.

/john

Note 654.13

>The God of Israel is a genderless God.

If this true, then God shouldn't mind non-masculine characterizations.

>His revelation was made through
>nature,

We all know how sin-ridden the natural world is.

>the Hebrew People, the Prophets, and His Son, Jesus.  They did
>not use the term Goddess; neither should we.

Of course!  They were all part of a male-dominated, patriarchal society.
If we only did what these people did, we'd never drive cars, work in
air-conditioned buildings, or use computers.

Richard

    >Just as we accept that the God that French Christians call "Dieu" or
    >that German Christians call "Gott" is not another God, but the same God
    >as the God of Israel.

    Well, that seems to imply that  so long as other religious are
    monotheistic, then they worship the same God; but you have generally
    been asserting just the opposite, so it isn't clear what the "Dieu"
    concept is supposed to imply.  After all, the Hindus also have a term
    for God, but you claim that what the Hindus call God is not God, and
    that when people use the word Goddess to express their monotheistic
    faith, they are also somehow not referring to what you call God.  Yet
    their religion is monotheistic, and if there is only one God then what
    God do they worship?  You can't have it both ways--either people who
    use different terms and different theological paradigmns for the one
    and only monotheistic deity are referring to the one and the same deity,
    or they are not.  The criteria that you select for what makes a
    religion acceptable as a sister faith is completely arbitrary.

    This is clear from your assertion that Moslems worship the same God
    that you do but that other monotheists do not.  Moslems may believe
    that a certain person named Abraham was a prophet of God, but so what? 
    If someone who uses the term Goddess also makes the same assertion
    about Abraham, does that make it okay?  Apparently you don't think so,
    yet many people with ties to the Christian faith might very well both
    use the term Goddess and also believe that Abraham was a prophet of
    God.

    Furthermore, despite this kinship that you like to claim with Islam,
    the resemblance between Islam and Christianity is actually in many ways
    quite superficial.  Islam is not simply some sort of offshoot of
    Judaism and Christianity; this is a common misconception of Christians,
    and reflects their own biases.  Islam is really a monotheistic religion
    native to the Arabian Peninsula, which emerged in response to Arabian
    polytheism.  The fact that the religion freely borrowed certain
    concepts and historical personages from Christianity and Judaism
    somehow makes it akin to your own faith--and yet when people in this
    very notes file who use the term Goddess also identify themselves with
    various concepts from Christianity, you attack their religion as a
    bastardized form of Christianity and one that you deem illegitimate, in
    stark contrast to your toleration for Islam.  The contradiction is
    truly blatant.
    
    -- Mike

>Yet many people who would prefer to use the term "Goddess" also trot out
>books like "When God was a Woman" -- closely linking their references to
>the "Goddess" with paganism.
    
    I wonder if you would care to stop your knee from jerking long enough
    to even address the categories of use of the term "Goddess" that Pat
    addressed in the base note.  Or is it just too much simpler to trot out
    your tired old broken record and once again attack something that you
    make no attempt to understand?  After all, blasting away at other
    belief systems is so much easier than thinking, isn't it?
    
    -- Mike

>Suggestion:
>
>Crosspost this topic in the Bagels conference and see what sort of response
>you get there.

    Suggestion:  Try reading the works of Jewish feminist theologian Judith
    Plaskow.  You might then learn that feminist theology is not restricted
    to Christianity.
    
    -- Mike

    I acknowledge that "goddess" is a religious perspective.

    Is anyone defining and declaring "goddess" to be a Christian
    perspective? What are these beliefs?  Where are they written?
    
    Use of the female form "goddess" to refer to the God whom was
    worshiped by Abraham, who is worshipped by Jews, Christians, and
    Muslims today denies the revealed truth of God contained in scripture.

    And when do tradition and Scripture stop being paths to understanding
    and become idols themselves?
    
    Richard
    

Mike, I don't believe you really misunderstood me as completely as you
claim to have in .16.

Allah is merely the Arabic word for God.

When Hanan Ashrawi (negotiator for the Palestinians) worships in her
home parish in the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East,
she uses the word Allah to refer to God.  When Bishop Samir Kafity
celebrates the Eucharist in her parish, he uses the word Allah.  When
he celebrates the Eucharist at the English language masses at the
Cathedral of St. George in Jerusalem, he uses the word God.

Christians, Moslems, and Jews all agree that Allah and God and YHWH and
Dieu and Gott are _language_ differences, not differences in belief about
who God is.  We have differences about other aspects of His revelation,
but we all agree that He is the same God, the God of Abraham.

We do not share this sort of agreement about God with any other religion.

/john

>When Hanan Ashrawi (negotiator for the Palestinians) worships in her
>home parish in the Episcopal Church of Jerusalem and the Middle East,
>she uses the word Allah to refer to God.  When Bishop Samir Kafity
>celebrates the Eucharist in her parish, he uses the word Allah.  When
>he celebrates the Eucharist at the English language masses at the
>Cathedral of St. George in Jerusalem, he uses the word God.

    And when a Hindu worships, he or she may very well use the Hindi
    word for God.  La de da.

>We have differences about other aspects of His revelation,
>but we all agree that He is the same God, the God of Abraham.

    You're right--he is the same God.  Of course, Christians who invoke the
    Goddess also believe in the God of Abraham.  At least followers of the
    Bahai faith are consistent in their expression of kinship with other
    monotheistic religions.  What remains through all of this is the
    arbitrary nature of your selection of what is an acceptable monotheism
    and what isn't.  You are willing to overlook massive differences in
    theology and claim kinship with a religion that not even a direct
    descendant of Judaism or Christianity, all because of agreement over
    one historical figure who is not even the crucial element of your
    Christian faith.  Islam is a religion that has completely different
    rituals, different theologies about scripture--different scriptures, as
    a matter of fact--and different beliefs about the nature and history of
    divine revelation.   Yet because they assign a role to a figure who may
    who appears in Christian and Jewish scriptures, you are willing to
    claim kinship with it--while you rail against those who are much more
    involved with Christian traditions but who happen to use a female name
    for the deity.
    
    -- Mike

Where in the Christian tradition is the support for using the term
"Goddess"?

>>the Hebrew People, the Prophets, and His Son, Jesus.  They did
>>not use the term Goddess; neither should we.
>
>Of course!  They were all part of a male-dominated, patriarchal society.

What authority do those who wish to use the term "Goddess" ascribe to
Jesus Christ?

Mike Valenza, Patricia Flanagan, Dorian Brooks:  Do you accept the authority
of Jesus Christ?  Is Jesus Christ God Almighty?

/john

The God of Abraham praise,              There dwells the Lord, our King,
Who reigns enthroned above;             The Lord, our Righteousness,
Ancient of everlasting days,            Triumphant o'er the world and sin,
And God of love;                        The Prince of Peace;
The Lord, the great I AM,               On Zion's sacred height
By earth and heaven confessed:          His kingdom he maintains,
We bow and bless the sacred Name        And glorious with his saints in light,
For ever blest.                         For ever reigns.

He by himself hath sworn:               The God who reigns on high
We on his oath depend;                  The great archangels sing,
We shall on eagle's wings upborne,      And "Holy, holy, holy," cry,
To heaven ascend:                       "Almighty King!
We shall behold his face,               Who was and is the same,
We shall his power adore,               And evermore shall be:
And sing the wonders of his grace       Eternal Father, great I AM,
For evermore.                           We worship thee."

                    The whole triumphant host
                    Give thanks to God on high;
                    "Hail, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"
                    They ever cry;
                    Hail, Abraham's Lord divine!
                    With heaven our songs we raise;
                    All might and majesty are thine,
                    And endless praise.

>Where in the Christian tradition is the support for using the term
>"Goddess"?

    I believe that the seeds of egalitarianism are to be buried in the
    Christian tradition if you look hard enough past its patriarchal
    tendencies, but for those of us who appreciate the evolutionary nature
    of religion, the more interesting question is what can we do to nurture
    those seeds into something more mature and fruitful.  We have already
    discussed in topic 604 that the belief in an evolutionary approach to
    theology need not be bound by a mindless acceptance of what went
    before.

>What authority do those who wish to use the term "Goddess" ascribe to
>Jesus Christ?

>Mike Valenza, Patricia Flanagan, Dorian Brooks:  Do you accept the authority
>of Jesus Christ?  Is Jesus Christ God Almighty?

    Why are you asking me?  I don't "wish to use use the term Goddess". 
    The fact that I oppose capital punishment doesn't make me a murderer;
    the fact that I support gay rights doesn't make me gay; the fact that I
    support women's right doesn't make me female; and the fact that I
    defend the use of the word Goddess doesn't mean that I use the term
    myself.  However, I am interested in exploring Patricia's comment at
    the end of her note that the term "Goddess" might be of value for men
    as a way of exploring their feminine side.  

    Oh yes.  Speaking of Patricia's note, to repeat my earlier question,
    would you care to address the three categories of usage for the term
    Goddess that Patricia discussed in the base note?   Or are you going to
    continue your scorched earth policy in this topic?

    -- Mike

    Good lord!
    
    			Here we go again....dealing with semantics.  #1 in
    .0 seems to me to be what I understand most people's intent is when the
    term "Goddess" is used.  If it is one of the others then I might take
    offense at it.  
    
    			Let me give a good example of how *I* could take
    offense, here in this file, over a word that is intended to mean one
    thing but Southern Baptists take it as something else.  That word is
    "Religion".  Tell a good Southern Baptist that he or she has Religion
    and they will be incensed!  Most will (gently I hope) let you know that
    "No, I have Jesus Christ, thank you very much.  Religion is what the
    worlds humanistic society believes in."   So when someone says a word
    that strikes you wrong why not inquire as to intent instead of flying
    off the handle and saying stupid things that aren't part of the
    question.  It really only takes up disk space.
    
    
    Dave

    Monkey on monkeyman's stick
    puppet at the end of a string
    
    I've played as you've played
    I've spoken as you've told me
    I've been as you've let me be
    
    O engineer of the world
    lord white as jasmine
    
    I've run
    till you cried halt.
    
    	- Mahadeviyakka

    
    
    
    re: .19
    >> Where are they written?
    
    In the Law of God that is written upon my heart, and in my mind.
    
    Ruth
    
    P.S.  Hebrews 8:10 
    

    	I must admit, I'm confused.
    
    	Christians have mutated the Jewish and Islamic God out of
    	recognition by "adding in" Jesus and the holy ghost. And yet you
    	claim to worship the same God.
    
    	Yet when a Christian (or a Christian look-alike) wants to refer
    	to THE SAME GOD using a female epithet, it treads loose an
    	avalanche of indignant righteousness. I can see only misplaced
    	masculine pride at the heart of this. It seems to me that it has
    	nothing to do with defending the faith. 
    
    	"In his image He made them, man and woman." (or am I reading this
    	too literally?).
                        
    	Greetings, Derek.

    re: 654.26

    Of course your example is a semantic game, but it is played out to make
    a point, namely the Southern Baptist who in your example wanted to make
    a distinction between the speaker's meaning to the word "religion" and
    his or her meaning of the word.  I acknowledge "Goddess" to be a
    religious concept.  Is it what Jesus Christ taught?

    So like your dialog in 645.26 I asked questions in 654.10 that have yet
    to be answered.  The question posed in .1 by Marc Hildebrant has yet to
    be answered as well.

    Is anyone defining and declaring "goddess" to be a Christian
    perspective? What are these beliefs?  Where are they written?

    What's the common ground shared between Christians who believe in what
    the Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, and Orthodox Churches teach and a
    Christian who addresses "goddess" in heaven?

    re: 654.29

    Christians have not "mutated" anything. The one true God who created
    all by an act of his will and loves all and revealed himself to
    Abraham, the written record of which is Genesis, is the God Jews,
    Christians, and Muslims worship.

    Christians understand through what Jesus revealed about the nature of
    God that God exists in three persons.

    I deny that I have "tread[ed] loose an avalanche of indignant
    righteousness".  I deny that "masculine pride is at the heart of this."

    No one has denied that men and women are created in the image of God
    (Genesis 1:27), but then again, those referring to "Goddess" have not
    affirmed that God revealed himself in Genesis.

    I affirm that Jesus taught us to pray to Our Father (Matthew 6:9)
                       

    I have a suggestion/request:
    
    Instead of turning *this* string into yet another "This isn't
    Christian" could somebody either set up a new string or take the
    conversation on whether or not it is "permissable" to discuss the
    Goddess in this file and let those who are inclined to do so discuss
    the Goddess here?
    
    Daniel

    	.30::Sweeny
    
    	>Is anyone defining and declaring "goddess" to be a Christian
    	>perspective? What are these beliefs. Where are they written?
    
    	Quite apart from the fact that you just may have hurt someone
    	by writing Goddess as goddess, this question makes very little
    	sense to me. If a Christian chooses to address his/her maker as
    	Goddess, then, *by definition* the use of the experession is
    	a Christian perspective. How would you like to be challenged to
    	define and declare "apple" as an Horticutlural perspective?
    
    	>What's the common ground shared between Christians who believe in
    	>what the Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, and Orthodox churches
    	>teach and a Christian who addresses "goddess" in heaven?
    
    	I guess that any list that you could draw up of common ground	
    	between the branches of Christianity you named would be a good
    	starting point.  Uncommon ground (also a fairly long list) would
    	include addressing Goddess in heaven.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.
     

    
.14 -

>   Suggestion:

>   Crosspost this topic in the Bagels conference and see what sort of response
>   you get there.


I don't know if anyone's followed up on this suggestion, but such a topic 
might include the very interesting and scholarly book *The Hebrew Goddess*
by Mr. Raphael Patai...it's a detailed study of numerous aspects of Goddess
reverence among the ancient Hebrew people, including the bearing of such 
reverence on the way in which the Hebrew God was conceptualized in ancient 
times.

Dorian                                       

    RE: .10
    
    I do too Pat...but....I'm still interested in this discussion, and
    I know that I can learn something from it. We all can, eh?
    
    Marc H.

    re: 654.32
    
    When someone writes they are "hurt" by writing Goddess as goddess,
    we'll discuss that.
    
    When someone who professes belief in what Jesus taught, defines and
    declares belief in "Goddess", we'll discuss that as a Christian
    prespective.

re.0
	Patracia,

	Many people do not realise that God is not a name but is a title.

;    1.  The name Goddess is used as an alternative to the name God.  It 
;    affirms that the Holy one of the bible is neither Male nor Female
;    can be identified in the Feminine form just as well as in the masculine
;    form. 

	Looking in the Bible you will see atleast two named goddesses, one 
	named Ashtorteth the goddess of the Sidionians ( Judges 2:13, 10:6,
	1 Samuel 7:3, 7:4, 12:10, 31:10, 1 Kings 11:5, 11:33, 2 Kings 23:13)
	and Artemis the Greek goddess (Acts 19:24,27,28,34,35). Looking
	at the account in Judges 10:6, we can see that worshipping the
	goddess Ashtoreth was seen as bad in the eyes of Almghty God, it is
	rendered in the NWT as "And the sons of Israel again proceded to do
	what was bad in the eyes of Jehovah, and they began to serve the
	Baals and the Ashtoreth images and the gods of Syria and the gods
	of Sidon and the gods of Moab and the gods of the sons of Ammon and
	the gods of the Philistines. So they left Jehovah and did not serve
	him." This portion of Scripture shows that there are many gods or
	goddesses but worshipping them does not mean that one is ultimately
	worshipping Almighty God.

	The Greek Scriptures also show "For even though there are those
	who are called "gods", whether in heaven or earth, just as there 
	are many "gods" and many "lords," there is actually to us one God
	the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there
	is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through 
	him." 1 cor 8:5,6 NWT. So the important thing is that we identify
	the right God to worship for John 4:23 NWT reads "Nevertheless, the
	hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship
	the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking
	for suchlike ones to worship him." One would not want ones worship
	to be in vain as was the case with the sons of Israel mentioned
	in Judges 10:6.

	Almighty God is identified by a name, which has been forgotten or is 
	unknown by many, it is found in Psalms 83:18 KJV.  

	Phil.

    Is anyone familiar with the Hebrew word "Shekina" (my spelling may be
    off here), what it means, and what gender the word is?
    
    Richard
    

In article <654.8-930429-160035@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, fleischer@lgp30.enet.dec.com (without vision the people perish (381-0899 ZKO2-2/T63)) writes:
|>        I note that even the most conservative members of this
|>        conference appear to be able to accept that what the Moslems
|>        call "Allah" is not another god but the same god as the God
|>        of Israel.

	I'm pretty conservative 8-) and I'm a good nit-picker too 8-), Bob.
I don't think that "Allah" is the same God as the God of Israel.  I grew
up in the Middle East so I have some superficial knowledge of the topic, but
not scholarly knowledge.  Allah is a very different God than the God of Israel.
The God of Israel is constrained by his nature, his attributes. In other
words, the God of Israel is constrained by his promises and his goodness. He
is not separate from the attribute of goodness, he can't help but be good.
Allah, on the other hand, is above his attributes and not constrained by them.
He could, if he so chose, decide tomorrow to send all those that obeyed him
straight to hell, because it isn't intrinsically part of his character.
Allah can break his promises, although I believe most Muslims would say
he wouldn't, whereas the God of Israel can't break his promises, he is
constrained by them. I believe that the Mutazilites tried to make Allah
more constrained by his attributes but they were branded as heretics since
folks thought that they were diminishing God's absolute power.

	Some folks might disagree with the above but I believe that it is
one difference between the two. What is common is that the Muslims claim
that Allah is in fact the God of Israel, it is just that they feel they
have a better concept of who God is than the Christians, some of whom, in
turn believe that they have a better concept of God than the Jews.

|>.
|>.
|>.
|>        Bob
|>

	Paul

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

In article <654.29-930430-035847@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, button@vnabrw.enet.dec.com (Do not reset mind, reality is fuzzy !) writes:
|>    	Yet when a Christian (or a Christian look-alike) wants to refer
|>    	to THE SAME GOD using a female epithet, it treads loose an
|>    	avalanche of indignant righteousness. I can see only misplaced
|>    	masculine pride at the heart of this. It seems to me that it has
|>    	nothing to do with defending the faith. 

	Recently our associate pastor used the terms "he or she" to refer
to God and that set off protest.  His reason for doing it was that he
deals with abused women who can't relate to a father.  I think his motives
are great but his actions aren't necessary.
	Basically, he is stating that God can't reach those women unless
he is referred to as a she, that the Holy Spirit is incapable of reaching
them.  This isn't the case based on the Bible record of who God is, and
is validated by the women who have been abused and have still been able
to be healed while seeing God as Father.  In Hebrews he points out the
differences between himself as a Father and our human fathers.
	The associate pastor also indicated that the reason Jesus and the
others didn't use feminine terms was because of the patriarchial society.
I guess my sense is that Jesus didn't let the society dictate to him what
he was proclaiming in other areas.  He cleaned the temple, he called the
Pharisees white-washed tombs, he told the parable of the good Samaritan and
the Gentiles were grafted in as part of his eternal plan, he had women around
him and helping him.  All of these are instances of him going against
the society of the time.  If it was important for God to be referred to as
she then certainly Jesus would have used that terminology and the Holy
Spirit would have preserved it for us. Again, you have to have certain
assumptions about who Christ was and what the Holy Spirit is capable of.
	Additionally, the associate pastor's argument implies that God has
not cared about abused women until now, ie that abused women down through
the ages have not been healed because would only have been able to experience
meaninful spirituality if God has been referred to as she, which he wasn't
due to the patriarchal society at the time. God either didn't care or he
couldn't get that Jesus guy to say the right words, or those gospel writer
guys to preserve what Jesus really said.
	My wife, is actually more strident on this issue than I am. Maybe
she needs to be re-educated. 8-)  She doesn't see any lack of being able
to relate to God despite the language used, and is offended by references
to Our Mother in heaven, ...
	Finally, the reason it kicks off a fire-storm is that it seems to
some to be the smoke indicating fire when it comes to how a person views
Christ and the how God has revealed himself to us.  The old camel's nose under
the tent... that is done for good motives but ultimately isn't necessary and
may even be harmful.

Whew...  8-)
|>    
|>    	"In his image He made them, man and woman." (or am I reading this
|>    	too literally?).

	God is genderless but he has revealed himself to us in a particular
way, through his son, who told us how to pray.
                        
|>    	Greetings, Derek.
|>

	Paul
 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Note 654.39

>	God is genderless but he has revealed himself to us in a particular
>way, through his son, who told us how to pray.

Paul,

	I concur, but with consideration given to the fact that Jesus was
speaking to men of a different time and a different culture.

	Jesus also spoke of punishing poor performance with whippings (Luke
12.47-48).  The people of that time understood and accepted these things.
Were Christ to become incarnate in the present, I submit he would not speak
about the whipping of servants, nor would he use cultural examples which
contemporary disciples could not relate to.

Richard

Re: 654.39 by QUABBI::"ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com" 


> If it was important for God to be referred to as
> she then certainly Jesus would have used that terminology and the Holy
> Spirit would have preserved it for us. 

	References to the feminine aspect of the deity were widespread
	among many early Christian communities.  Identification of 
	aspects of God as the Mother, or the Mother-Father were common.  
	The tripartite nature of God was often referred to as the 
	Father, Mother, and Son.  

	These *have* been preserved for us.  And this was despite the
	best efforts of those who called for their complete destruction
	and caused them to be unknown for so many years. 


Joe

In article <654.41-930503-093040@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, sniderman@refdv1.enet.dec.com writes:

Joe,
	
|>	References to the feminine aspect of the deity were widespread
|>	among many early Christian communities.  Identification of 
|>	aspects of God as the Mother, or the Mother-Father were common.  
|>	The tripartite nature of God was often referred to as the 
|>	Father, Mother, and Son.  



|>	These *have* been preserved for us.  And this was despite the
|>	best efforts of those who called for their complete destruction
|>	and caused them to be unknown for so many years. 

	I'd be very interested in some references if you could provide
them, as I would be interested in looking at them myself.  The context of
this stream has tended to focus on the appropriateness
of the term "Goddess" in replacing or being used interchangeably with
the term "God". Referring to the Trinity as Father, Mother, and Son is not
exactly the same but is pretty interesting and might have bearing. Do you
feel that Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as Mother?

	From your second paragraph I assume that these sources aren't
your typical orthodox sources.  From your statement it sounds as though
you have evidence that there was a conspiracy started sometime after
this early use to suppress the knowledge of those documents.  I would be
interested in evidence, if available, of that as well.

|>
|>Joe
|>

Thanks,
Paul


-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

	Paul,

	You are correct that the texts that I referred to were not from
	typical orthodox sources.  On the contrary, they were those
	identified as heretical when the schisms occurred in the church
	that led to the adoption of the orthodox canon and creeds. 
	Whether the efforts of the church to remove all traces of these
	writings fits the definition of conspiracy or not could be a
	topic in itself. 

	When I referred to the texts being unknown for so many years I 
	was specifically thinking of the texts that were preserved by
	burial in earthenware jars around 400 CE at a monastery in 
	Nag Hammadi, Egypt.  Their rediscovery in 1945 provided us with 
	a significant view of the range of theological viewpoints that
	had characterized Christianity before the split. 

	Your question about whether I feel that Jesus referred to the 
	Holy Spirit as Mother is interesting.  I do not feel that I have 
	enough information to know one way or the other.  I just wanted
	to point out that there were many groups claiming apostolic
	succession who did believe that this was true. 


Joe

    
    RE:  .0
    
    >I personally believe that women need the Goddess, an image of the
    >divine as feminine.  We need it to truly be comfortable with our
    >identities as women.
    
    I'm curious Patsy.  Why should I feel uncomfortable about my identity
    as women because God has been portrayed as masculine?  I don't get it.
    God has blessed women throughout the course of time.  Even in Genesis
    we're given the name helper which is a name or attribute of God.  I
    don't find that degrading at all.
    
    Jill

Thanks for your reply Joe.

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Note 654.45 

>The grammatical gender of a word has nothing to do with the sex of the
>thing it describes.

I can't agree entirely with this, although I do know what you're talking
about.  Spoon in Spanish is feminine, but of course, a spoon has no gender.

At the same time, it alters our thinking considerably, for example, if we
speak of the human race as "womankind" or if I were to refer to you as my
"sister in Christ."  Try substituting "women" (in the generic sense, of
course) for a while every time you might normally say "men" (in the generic
sense).  It's a very revealing exercise.

Richard

re: grammatical gender references...(I think I mentioned this elsewhere
in this conference)

Some time ago I had an interesting chat with a couple fellow workers whose
native tongue is Spanish (Puerto Rican and Colombian).  I was asking them 
about how their gender specific language affects the culture.  (I took a few 
years of Spanish in high school, can't remember much of it, though. .-( )

An interesting note was that it was acceptable to inadvertantly refer to a 
woman with some male-gendered word, but tempers would flare if a man were 
refered to with a female-gendered word.  From those two viewpoints from 2 
different cultures, there is a double standard at work which both accepted
almost nonchalantly.

Peace,

Jim

    RE: 654.48  gender specific pronouns

    So, which gender has the identity problem ;^)

    Tom

    .45 By the way, thanks for the further enlightenment on the meaning of
    Shekina, John!
    
    Richard
    

    "In what has been said so far I have attempted to locate with some
    accuracy the problem of the gender of God.  The problem is not the sex
    of God (which does not exist) but our experience of God as masculine;
    and it is not the masculinity of Jesus (who is anything but a
    glorification of machismo) but his male sex.  However, the reason
    Jesus' male sex is a problem is because it is seen as a revelatory
    confirmation of the masculinity of God and therefore of the divinity of
    maleness.  Jesus, the man, is the incarnation of the Son of the the
    Father.  Consequently, our primary concern must be with the experienced
    masculinity of God.

    "God is not male; but we experience God as masculine.  In other words,
    we imagine God anthropomorphically as male.  There is a tendency,
    especially among those with a traditional Catholic education, to regard
    the imagination as a frivolous, if not dangerous, capacity for nonsense
    in human beings who were intended to function rationally.  In recent
    years the word of scholars in theology, liturgy, and Scripture has made
    us aware that the imagination is not primarily a reproductive or
    combinatory faculty but is our constructive capacity to integrate our
    experience into dynamic and effective wholes which then function as the
    interpretive grids of further experience.

    "Perhaps our most accessible example of the functioning and the effect
    of the imagination is the formation of our own self-image.  The self,
    like God and the world, is not a finite and circumscribed entity of
    which we can take a mental photograph.  To "get the picture" of
    ourselves is a never-ending process of integrating our experience into
    our sense of subjectivity in such a way that we can experience
    ourselves as other than in some relationship to everything else.

    "The image of the self, like the image of God and of the world, is not
    wholly the product of rational or deliberate processes but is a complex
    and dynamic reality which is formed by the interaction of conscious and
    unconscious factors in relation to actual experience.  Once formed, the
    image organizes and interprets our experience so that what we actually
    experience as well as its meaning and significance is largely the
    function of our imagination.  Thus, the person with a distorted
    self-image may be incapable of experiencing much to which she or he is
    actually exposed, may misintepret what is experienced, and may draw all
    the wrong conclusions from it.  The images of self, God and world,
    furthermore, are incapable of total objectification and they are never
    static.  We may know that our self-image is inflated, negative, or
    realistic but we can never say exactly what our self-image is. 
    Furthermore, our self-image undergoes constant modification as it
    interacts with our experience.  In other words, the work of the
    imagination is ongoing.  We are not the passive victims of our
    imaginations but can affect the vital images of self, God, and world.

    "It is important to recognize that the three basic life-structuring
    images: God, self, and world, are interrelated.  If the world is
    imagined as a finite globe floating in space God may well be imagined
    as a finite but very powerful being living someplace in space and
    acting upon the world.  The self, in such an imagination, is a very
    small creature whose basic relationship with God is one of subjection
    to an all-powerful world-controller.  In a world which is imagined as
    patriarchal in fact and by divine institution, God is necessarily
    imagined as the supreme patriarch.  A woman with such an imagination
    must see herself as an inferior version of humanity subject first to
    human men and ultimately to the infinite divine male who established
    teh patriarchal world order.  This is, in fact, the imagination which
    the Church has gone to great lengths to encourage in both women and
    men.  God is presented as a great patriarch whose enormous household is
    this world.  The patriarchal father-God enjoys absolute and
    unaccountable power over nature and persons.  This God recognizes in
    his male children a certain likeness to himself and places them in
    charge of his female children.  However, in relationship to the divine
    patriarch himself all his children are feminine because, in relation to
    him, they are powerless and dependent.

    "The imagination is not entirely subject to rational control.  Our God,
    self, and world images begin to form very early and they are reinforced
    by our experiences at home, in school, in church, and in the broader
    society.  These images carry such a numinous sense of reality that to
    interfere with them seems not only impossible but to dangerous.  To
    tamper with our images of self, God and world threatens to destroy the
    very coordinates of reality.  However, as we know, these images can be
    changed.  World-images have been modified by science, by philosophy, by
    travel, by the arms race.  And one of psychotherapy's major tasks is to
    heal the unhealthy self-image which paralyzes a person's capacity for
    life and growth.

    "The tenacity of the patriarchal God-image is such that many feminists
    have decided that the only course open to women whose self-image has
    been healed of gender inferiority and whose world-image has been healed
    of hierarchy in general and patriarchy in particular is to abandon the
    Christian God altogether.  I would like to suggest that just as the
    self and world images can be healed, so can the God-image.  It cannot
    be healed, however, by rational intervention alone.  Repeating the
    theological truth that God is Spirit may correct our ideas but a
    healthy spirituality requires a healing of the imagination which will
    allow us not only to think differently about God but to experience God
    differently.  The imagination is accessible not primarily to abstract
    ideas but to language, images, interpersonal experiences, symbols, 
    art--all the integrated approaches which appeal simultaneously to
    intellect, will, and feeling.  What must be undertaken is a therapy of
    the religious imagination, first in regard to God and then in regard to
    our relationship with Jesus Christ."

    	From "Women and the Word", pages 15-19, by Sandra M. Schneiders
    	1986 Madeleva Lecture in Spirituality

    
.44 -
    
>>  I personally believe that women need the Goddess, an image of the
>>  divine as feminine.  We need it to truly be comfortable with our
>>  identities as women.
    
>   I'm curious Patsy.  Why should I feel uncomfortable about my identity
>   as women because God has been portrayed as masculine?  I don't get it.
>   God has blessed women throughout the course of time.  Even in Genesis
>   we're given the name helper which is a name or attribute of God.  I
>   don't find that degrading at all.
    
You might want to read an article by Carol Christ, "Why Women Need the
Goddess" (it's reprinted in the book *The Politics of Women's
Spirituality*, ed. Charlene Spretnak). 

Also, the following passages seemed relevant, from the book *The Spiral
Dance: A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Great Goddess*, by Starhawk
(who, incidentally, is going to be giving a talk at Interface in Cambridge on
June 7): 

"Since the decline of the Goddess religions, women have lacked religious 
models and spiritual systems that speak to female needs and experience. 
Male images of divinity characterize both western and eastern religions. 
Regardless of how abstract the underlying concept of God may be, the 
symbols, avatars, preachers, prophets, gurus, and Buddhas are overwhelmingly 
male. Women are not encouraged to explore their own strengths and 
realizations; they are taught to submit to male authority, to identify 
masculine perceptions as their spiritual ideals, to deny their bodies and 
sexuality, to fit their insights into a male mold....

"The importance of the Goddess symbol for women cannot be overstressed. The 
image of the Goddess inspires women to see ourselves as divine, our bodies 
as sacred, the changing phases of our lives as holy, our aggression as 
healthy, our anger as purifying, and our power to nurture and create, but 
also to limit and destroy when necessary, as the very force that sustains 
all life. Through the Goddess, we can discover our strength, enlighten our 
minds, own our bodies, and celebrate our emotions. We can move beyond 
narrow, constricting roles and become whole."

She goes on:

"The Goddess is also important for men. The oppression of men in...
patriarchy is perhaps less obvious but no less tragic than that of
women...." 

[but that's another topic]

Dorian

In article <654.51-930505-221807@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, valenza@deming.enet.dec.com (My note runneth over.) writes:

Mike,

	Thanks for taking the time to type this in. I don't agree with
some of it (as you might suspect) but it is interesting to see this
perspective.

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    RE: .44
    Jill,
    
    Dorian's reply in .52 mirrors my own interpretation of why women need
    feminine images of the divine. 
    
    Unfortunately both several passages attributed to Paul and much of St.
    Augustine's work and therefore much of the attitude of Catholic
    Christianity and perhaps Christianity in general has overtly stated
    that only men are created in the image of God.  I am appalled to learn
    that many of my friends who were once Catholic had to pin kleenix to
    their heads when they were girls and had forgot their hats for church.
    Since women were said to not be created in the image of God they could
    not go into the church with their heads uncovered.  Protestant
    Christianity adopted similiar beliefs and the issue of whether women
    should be ordained or not reflects this issue.  It is only within the
    last 140 years that any domination would consider ordaining women.  All
    of this and all the political and social oppression as well based on
    that belief.  It is wounding.  Carol Christ points out in her article
    that only by replacing the dsyfunctional model of God as only male, can
    women heal from the scars of not be identified like their brothers as
    created in the image of God.
    
    Men are as oppressed by stereotypical role models as women are.  It is
    just that some men are too macho to even realize their own oppression. 
    Men need feminine images of the divine to help them love and nurture
    the feminine side of their souls.
    
    Patricia

>Since women were said to not be created in the image of God ...

I really wish you would stop proclaiming this without backing it
up.  I have told you before that it is not true.  Now, please stop.

I consider this harassment, this constant lying about my religion.

/john

	"Women do not just want to name God differently; we want to *know*
God differently.  We want to see God in ourselves and our selves in God.
We want to know that God understands and cares about our struggles and
needs and hopes as women."

						- Marjorie Procter-Smith
						  Perspectives, March 1993

   Part of the frustration in answering this sort of insult to Roman
   Catholicism is that there no issue of "belief" here, only what
   non-participants in the conference felt 10, or 20, or 30 years ago.

   It's either ignorant or deceptive to suggest that the covering the
   head of women is "oppression".  It is obedience to the Apostolic
   tradition of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11 3-16.  This was not a matter of
   obligation of Church law in order for one to attend Mass, but an
   aspect of the customs over the centuries.  If a custom that makes a
   distinction between men and women is inherently "oppressive" then
   this is outside the scope of religion.  The veil of Islamic women is
   a matter of obedience to the Holy Koran.

   The uncovering of one's head is more traditionally associated with
   humility in Christian cultures, the opposite is true in Islam and
   Judaism.

    It's oppression when it's involuntarily imposed upon an individual or
    a people.
    
    Pax Romana was an oppressive peace, for example.
    
    And yes, I consider the veil to be oppressive, by and large.  I suppose
    you see women as socially equal to men in Islamic society??
    
    Richard
    

    Richard, Patricia's friends were not subjects of the Roman Empire.
    
    I only know Muslim women who live in the United States where there is a
    guarantee of religious freedom.  They are devout.  I attended the
    prayers and wedding of one.  Obedience to the Koran is a higher
    priority in their life than what others consider "socially equal".
    
    Likewise there are Christian women I know who believe that Bible is a
    better guide to life and the afterlife than feminist dogma.

 Ok...I was baffled by it when I first read it last night, was still baffled
 when I awoke at 630 this morning and am still baffled.  I am far from
 being considered macho, but I fail to see how I am oppressed.  I am blessed
 far beyond that which I deserve, I, along with my sisters in Christ, have
 responsibilities in God's Kingdom...how am I oppressed?


 
 Jim

 And perhaps it is my simple faith in God (with which I am quite happy, thank
 you) but I fail to see why I need to see a "feminine image of the divine" or
 get in touch with the "feminine side of my soul" (assuming I believe I have
 such a thing).





 Jim

RE: .55 & 57



		With all the the different and diverse opinions and beliefs,
*ANYONE* can claim "insults" and "lies".  From a physiological viewpoint, my
first thought is "I think thou doth protest too much".  Without pointing at
any specific instance but rather looking at a history of noting behavior, its
clear that there are some deep issues that cause some discomfort when personal
beliefs and thoughts are challenged.  To me, this is a special blessing because
it requires me to plumb the depths of scripture thus purifying my own faith.
Why challange others to "prove it" when both of you seem to believe that you
have the right answers and can prove it by the Word of God.  There is also some
traditional beliefs (that many Churches stand by) that would easily cause
many women to believe in the intentional oppression of women in the Church
and yet you both seem to ignore that fact and continue to claim insult and 
injury.  Since I believe that God *IS* androgynous, the word "Goddess" is
much the same as the traditional male reference as God or "he".  I find it
difficult in the extreme to believe that this issue should cause so much 
furor when an eternity without God is at stake.  This fact causes me to 
wonder about your intentions.  Why not look at it as another aspect of
God.  



Dave 

    And anyone can meta-protest too much as well...

    This isn't about a sincerely held religious belief but an accusation of
    "oppression" based on a practice that is done in obedience to the
    teachings of St. Paul.  So Dave, I don't know if this is "belief" or
    mockery.

    I'm open to the discussion of allegations of oppression of women by
    Christianity.  What's to discuss where one only makes accusations and
    ridicules the practices of a Church?

    It's one thing to suggest that God is neither male nor female.  This,
    in fact, is the tradition of Christianity.  Since God is the creator
    not the created, God transcends gender and all physical attributes.

    Why then the concern over the term "Goddess"?  It is, among other
    things, the implied rejection of the term used by Christians from the
    1st century to the present and breaks the connection that we Christians
    have with Christ who taught us to pray to Our Father in heaven, and
    makes the connection to the pagans who worshiped many goddesses.
    So it is an insult to invoke Christ and "goddess" as one faith.

    I deny the characterization of this as "furor".  I wonder about your
    intention for suggesting it is.
    

    RE: .63  Patrick,
    
>    And anyone can meta-protest too much as well...

	Point taken...and you might be right...I'll grant that.


>    This isn't about a sincerely held religious belief but an accusation of
>    "oppression" based on a practice that is done in obedience to the
>    teachings of St. Paul.  So Dave, I don't know if this is "belief" or
>    mockery.

	What if, Patrick, that this *IS* a "sincerely held religious belief"
        that women have been oppressed.  And that women have been discriminated
	against based on gender alone.  In my belief, Paul was a man and as
	such was a "sinful" creature unable to be perfect as was Christ and
	but for the grace of God would be damned.  I have known many women 
	with exactly such a belief.  Karen Berggren is but one.

>    I'm open to the discussion of allegations of oppression of women by
>    Christianity.  What's to discuss where one only makes accusations and
>    ridicules the practices of a Church?

	I am gratified to hear this first sentance from you.  As for the second;
	I dare say that the Church of 2000 years ago is far from the Church
	we see today.  I believe that, as the Bible says, we will understand
	more and more of Scripture the closer we get to Christs coming back
	and our Church needs to respond to gained knowledge as time goes on.
	Much like we have in the past otherwise we run the risk of becoming
	pharisitic...the very thing Christ fought so hard against.

>    It's one thing to suggest that God is neither male nor female.  This,
>    in fact, is the tradition of Christianity.  Since God is the creator
>    not the created, God transcends gender and all physical attributes.

	I agree.  But then why do we cling to the masculine term for God?
	Its tradition....right?  So the term "Goddes" when relating to the
	same God you worship shouldn't be offensive...right?

>    Why then the concern over the term "Goddess"?  It is, among other
>    things, the implied rejection of the term used by Christians from the
>    1st century to the present and breaks the connection that we Christians
>    have with Christ who taught us to pray to Our Father in heaven, and
>    makes the connection to the pagans who worshiped many goddesses.
>    So it is an insult to invoke Christ and "goddess" as one faith.

	Your talking tradition.  With the women (and others of course) there
	is *NO* intent to reject the God you and I profess...quite the 
	opposite really.  I will agree that there are some that would try
	to equate pagan goddesses with the only real and living God.  But
	those gods are false and you and I relize that.  Have you ever 
	thought that you might be insulting their religion by your beliefs?
	And yet I don't see them crying out against your right to make such
	statements about your beliefs.  I only see them (me) wondering why
	you get so defensive when it is different than yours.  That very
	difference is an opportunity.  

>    I deny the characterization of this as "furor".  I wonder about your
>    intention for suggesting it is.

	Just as I deny your assertion of insult.  If I really believed that
	there was a concerted effort to insult you I would take action as a 
	moderator.  But then you would have to also face the idea of action
	taken against you for percieved insults against them and then there
	would be no communication at all.  So much then for the great 
	commission.  Let us all be silent, and stagnant for Christ.  I don't
	know about you but that would be intollorable for me and what I 
	believe. 
    

Dave

    I'd like it if someone could answer a question...this is a question,
    not an attack on your faith and I'd appreciate an answer with that in
    mind...
    
    I can understand the feeling that Patricia has expressed concerning
    women's roles in traditional Western religions.  Chapter one of Genesis
    says man and woman are created together, at the same time, but the
    detailed account in chapter two has Eve derived from a rib.  The
    rabbinic tradition in Judaism popularized the idea that the woman of
    chapter one was Lilith who became a demon for refusing to "lie beneath"
    Adam.  Also, the "rib theory" of chapter two is clearly the most
    popular and well-known story of woman's creation in our culture.
    
    It isn't hard to argue that that which is derivitive is, essentially,
    secondary to the original.  Instead of having a separate,
    individualized identity, the first woman is derived from the first man.
    Even if it is not expressly stated, the structure of the story easily
    shows woman as secondary to man, and she is also faulted with humanity
    being kicked out of Eden.
    
    Are these concerns about the message of the story really
    Anti-Christian?  Or are they at least legitimate concerns for
    discussion?  John says that Christianity doesn't teach that women are
    not created in God's image, but Genesis shows man created in God's
    image and woman derived from that image...that's not a direct act, and
    I think it isn't honest to deny that it has had an impact on Western
    culture.  As late as the "Enlightenment" Christian theologians were
    debating whether or not women even had *souls*
    
    There is a background and a long history behind Patricia's
    concerns...is simply saying "No, you're wrong. Stop it" addressing them
    at all?  Is Mary, revered for a "virgin birth" (ie: not a birth that
    naturally occurs for other women) really being revered in a sense that
    affirms her womanhood?
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    
    BTW, re Carol Christ...she's also the author of a book, *The Laughter
    of Aphrodite."
    
    Dorian

    >I am appalled to learn that many of my friends who were once Catholic
    >had to pin kleenix to their heads when they were girls and had forgot
    >their hats for church.
    
    Wow, I had not heard of that practice before.  They actually *required*
    females to wear a head covering in church?  Amazing.  Do they still
    impose this requirement?
    
    -- Mike

>As late as the "Enlightenment" Christian theologians were
>debating whether or not women even had *souls*

Anyone who would put forth the idea that women did not have souls would
have been rejecting centuries of Church tradition of honoring women saints.

If we look at the canon of the Mass as it existed in England in 1531, we
see that every single day every single priest reminded himself and every
Christian that women have souls:

   Remember, Lord, also the souls of thy servants and handmaidens, N. and N.
   which are gone before us with the mark of faith, and rest in the sleep of
   peace.  We beseech thee, O Lord, that unto them, and unto all such as rest
   in Christ, thou wilt grant a place of refreshing, of light, and of peace.
   Through the same Christ our Lord.  Amen.

   Unto us sinners also, thy servants, hoping of the multitude of thy mercies,
   vouchsafe to give some portion and fellowship with thy holy Apostles and
   Martyrs; with John, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander,
   Marcellinus, Peter, Felicitas, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucia, Agnes, Cecilia,
   Anastasia, and with all thy Saints: within whose fellowship we beseech thee
   to admit us, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offenses.  Through
   Christ our Lord.

Thus it is clear that anyone who would argue that women do not have souls is
arguing against the Faith taught through the ages by the Church.

/john

>>Many of my friends who were once Catholic had to pin kleenix to their
>>heads when they were girls and had forgot their hats for church.
>    
>I had not heard of that practice before.  Do they still impose this
>requirement?

This requirement is no longer enforced.  When it was, most Episcopal
churches had small round lace things about 5 inches in diameter that
women who did not have hats could wear.

Is this any different than the requirement that men wear head coverings
in synagogues?  Kippas are handed to men as they enter; most U.S.
synagogues hand you nice ones, but in Israel, at least at tourist spots,
you get handed really strange looking cardboard ones.

The requirement for women to cover their heads grew out of two different
traditions:  first, it was customary in 1st century Palestine for women to
wear headcoverings; this tradition was carried over into gentile communities
for use when worshipping.  Second, there were some serious moral problems
in some of the early communities which involved hair styles on both men and
women.  St. Paul was enforcing a clear way of regulating both men's hair
styles and women's hair styles to deal with these problems.

In particular, it allowed women to wear beautiful hair styles in secular life
but then to appear more modest in church when worshipping.  And men were
completely forbidden to wear outlandish hair styles in or out of church.

/john

    >Is this any different than the requirement that men wear head coverings
>in synagogues?  Kippas are handed to men as they enter; most U.S.
>synagogues hand you nice ones, but in Israel, at least at tourist spots,
>you get handed really strange looking cardboard ones.

    I always bring my own when planning on attending a synagogue. I got a 
    real nice one at a wedding some years back. I wonder, BTW, if forcing
    women to wear head coverings means they are "less" than men does forcing
    men to wear head coverings prove that men are "less" than women in
    Jewish tradition? If not, why not?

    		Alfred

    I don't believe that Jewish men feel left out of the Jewish
    faith.

    When a woman goes (went?) to church and told she must cover 
    her head because she is a woman, the priest is male, and the 
    alter boys are male can you see why she's feel left out?  Even
    if that wasn't the *intent* of the church - this is what was
    felt.  BTW: did Mary always wear a hat?

    We're all the same before God, but *you* have to cover your head.

    And Dorian, I think you can call God whatever you want.  IMHO
    that's between you and Her.

    Tom

 And men are called to "love love your wives, just as Christ loved the church
 and gave Himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25).  Both are called to submit,
 both  have responsibilities before the Lord.  Shall we stand and shake our
 fists at God and call it "offensive, insulting and unreasonable" that we are
 called to be prepared to give our lives for our wives?

 As I have pointed out before, it is man (or humans if you prefer) that has
 moved from God.  He has not moved, He will not move, it is man that must 
 return to God, not God that must conform Himself to the society that man has
 fouled up.

    -.1
    
    It could be argued that society was also pretty fouled up roughly 2000
    years ago...in other words: the early people to record the "message" as
    it were could also have been as mixed up by their culture as we are by
    ours today.
    
    If God is considered unmoveable, and we are considered to have "moved
    away" hasn't that been happening since the proverbial beginning?  How
    are we, admittedly imperfect, supposed to *know* when we're back where
    you say we're supposed to be?  How do we know that the people to record
    what they thought were God's wishes were not as confused as we are?
    
    Daniel

re Note 654.72 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  And men are called to "love love your wives, just as Christ loved the church
>  and gave Himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25).  Both are called to submit,
>  both  have responsibilities before the Lord.  Shall we stand and shake our
>  fists at God and call it "offensive, insulting and unreasonable" that we are
>  called to be prepared to give our lives for our wives?

        I don't see anyone in this conference shaking their fists at
        God or stating that what they believe to be a pronouncement
        from God is "offensive, insulting and unreasonable".

        I'm not sure I've ever seen, heard, or read anyone in the
        feminist movement doing such a thing.

        However, I have seen a lot of legitimate questioning whether
        Paul as typically quoted on this subject completely
        represents God's timeless words on this subject.

        I assume that it is still within the bounds of reason to
        shake our fist at another human being, or to question the
        quality of their words?

        Bob

 By believing that the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant I do not believe
 that those who wrote at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit erred in any way.  

 I do not believe there is anything in the Bible that does not apply to life
 today, should we chose to obey it.





 Jim

    I guess that's another question I need to ask....
    
    ALthough I don't personally believe, I can understand that people
    believe the Bible to be inspired by God.
    
    But it is also acknowledged that it was written by HUMANS.
    
    If God didn't directly dictate the text, but rather inspired the
    authors, how can you be 100% certain that they did not misunderstand
    the inspiration?  Being inspired by something or someone isn't the same
    as having it dictated to you -- inspiration is a motivating force --
    people, flawed as we are (a point acknowledged by Western religions),
    make mistakes even when inspired...
    
    ..I do not understand how FLAWED humans can write a FLAWLESS text even
    if the *inspiration* to write it came from the Divine.
    
    Daniel

>        I don't see anyone in this conference shaking their fists at
>        God or stating that what they believe to be a pronouncement
>        from God is "offensive, insulting and unreasonable".

 
         There have been statements in this conference that certain Biblical
         commandments are "offensive and insulting".  Unreasonable was something
         I tossed in and will retract it as I don't recall having seen that
         comment in here.





>        However, I have seen a lot of legitimate questioning whether
>        Paul as typically quoted on this subject completely
>        represents God's timeless words on this subject.

        "...also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him,
         wrote to you, as also in all his letters speaking in them of these
         things, in which some things are hard to understand, which the untaught
         and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the scriptures, to their
         own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15,16


         Here Peter clearly indentifies ALL of of Paul's letters as scripture.



     


     >   I assume that it is still within the bounds of reason to
     >   shake our fist at another human being, or to question the
     >   quality of their words?

      
         If you mean questioning the writings of Paul, the above indicates that
         his writings are scripture and as such inspired by God, thus question-
         ing him could be assumed to be questioning God.

         



 Jim

re Note 654.78 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

> >        However, I have seen a lot of legitimate questioning whether
> >        Paul as typically quoted on this subject completely
> >        represents God's timeless words on this subject.
> 
>         "...also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him,
>          wrote to you, as also in all his letters speaking in them of these
>          things, in which some things are hard to understand, which the untaught
>          and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the scriptures, to their
>          own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15,16
> 
> 
>          Here Peter clearly indentifies ALL of of Paul's letters as scripture.

        This may be an example of where the use of a translation
        fails us, but the above English sentence does not
        unambiguously equate "scripture" with "his letters" -- it may
        be equating it to some of the contents ("some things") -- it
        may even be referring to the old testament scripture Paul
        frequently quotes.  And what does the word "scriptures" mean
        -- could it mean something fairly generic (such as religious
        teaching literature)?

        There was no doubt in my mind that Paul's letter were a form
        of scripture.  

        However:

        - do they COMPLETELY represent God's word on this subject for
        ALL time?

        - is the conventional and/or easy understanding of these the
        best or correct understanding?

        - it does not say what one must do when one reads scripture,
        other than "understand".  Perhaps God inspired scripture not
        as an ending point of knowledge but as a beginning.  Perhaps
        God intends each person, and each generation, to "confront
        the claims of Scripture" and not merely passively accept and
        obey it.  I believe that the Christian feminists are doing
        just that.

        - ultimately, what we follow is not merely the words but our
        understanding of God.  As Peter points out, in some places
        understanding is hard.


>      >   I assume that it is still within the bounds of reason to
>      >   shake our fist at another human being, or to question the
>      >   quality of their words?
> 
>       
>          If you mean questioning the writings of Paul, the above indicates that
>          his writings are scripture and as such inspired by God, thus question-
>          ing him could be assumed to be questioning God.

        No, no, no -- "inspiration" (or "breathing" if you will) does
        not reduce the human being to the status of a pen (or word
        processor).  The human is still a human being, with human
        thoughts, human limitations, and is involved intellectually
        as well as physically in the writing.

        To me it is a slam against God to point to the writings of a
        human being, even a God-inspired one, and say that God was
        wholly responsible for it.  It is an even greater slam
        against an infinite creator God to point to a few words and
        say that that represents the mind of God on any non-trivial
        subject.

        Bob

I think that the discussion of the inspiration of the Bible probably belongs
in another note than "The Goddess Note"....



-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

For anyone interested in women's spirituality and the Goddess, I'd like to 
recommend a book: *Goddesses & Wise Women: The Literature of Feminist 
Spirituality 1980 - 1992, An Annotated Bibliography*, by Anne Carson (The 
Crossing Press, 1992). This book is an update of an earlier bibliography 
that Carson published in 1986. It's a compilation of books, articles, 
periodicals, and audio-visual materials relating to women's spirituality 
and the Goddess. There are 1190 entries, arranged alphabetically by author;
and there's a subject index. 

Entries are arranged in the following categories:

	Introduction
	Feminism and Women's Spirituality
	The Goddess Through Time and Space
	Witchcraft: Traditional Europe and Feminist Wicca
	Christianity and Judaism: Woman-Centered Re-Visioning
	Fiction and Fantasy Literature
	Children's Literature
	Audio-Visual Materials
	Periodicals
	Bibliographies and Additional Resources

In her Introduction, Carson writes:

"In the six years [since 1986] a river of books, articles, magazines, 
newsletters, and audiotapes touching upon women's spiritual experience and 
the renaissance of interest in the Goddess has flowed quietly but steadily. 
The movement has attained enough academic respectability that doctoral 
dissertations are being written about it....Although some of the authors 
represented here have completely rejected the Biblical tradition, even a 
brief perusal of the Christian/Jewish section will expose the reader to the 
beautiful and exciting work some women are doing in churches and temples. 
An explicitly feminist theology may be seen in both Christianity and 
Judaism, and women-centered liturgies have quickly grown in both faith 
traditions...my gratitude to all those authors, artists, and healers whose 
burning certainty of the importance of the Feminine has produced so many 
fascinating works on the Goddess Reborn."

It sounds to me like that book is devil-breathed.

Sounds like a wonderful book to me, Dorian!!  ;')

Wish I could remember the exact words Marianne Williamson used in the 
lecture I attended in Boston last week to an over-capacity audience 
at the John Hancock auditorium to which she received a standing 
ovation.  The gist was the Goddess, the feminine face of God will no
longer be silenced, we can open our hearts lovingly to her or we can 
continue to deny her until she erupts in a manner no one can ignore.

Powerful message, powerful speaker.  I highly recommend her new book 
which has already soared to #4 on the bestseller list within a month 
of its release, A Woman's Worth.

Ro

>Powerful message, powerful speaker.  I highly recommend her new book 
>which has already soared to #4 on the bestseller list within a month 
>of its release, A Woman's Worth.


 Well, and to think I've been wasting my time reading the authoritative
 Bible when I should have been reading a bestseller!





 Jim

    
    The Bible's not a bestseller?!

<< Well, and to think I've been wasting my time reading the authoritative
<< Bible when I should have been reading a bestseller!

Jim, the point I was making in this note topic entitled 'the Goddess' 
was that there is a need by many women to hear other women validate 
their experience of God/Goddess and that is why the book by 
word-of-mouth, woman to woman, has soared to the top of the 
best sellers list.  As did Marianne's last book, A Return to Love 
based on the principles of the God-inspired A Course in Miracles.

Nobody claimed that this book invalidated the Bible.  Why does 
appreciating a spiritual book for women have to be considered a slam 
against the Bible?

Ro

p.s. My husband attended the lecture with me and cheered what Marianne 
was saying too.  The Bible is his favorite book, but he enjoyed A
Woman's Worth as well. 

 Would you be so enthralled by a book written by a woman with a 
 Biblical view on women, validating their experience in obedience
 to God?  Or, attend a lecture by a woman with the same experience?



 Jim

Have you read "Story of a Soul" by St. Therese of Lisieux?

Jim.

< Would you be so enthralled by a book written by a woman with a 
< Biblical view on women, validating their experience in obedience
< to God?  Or, attend a lecture by a woman with the same experience?

Yes, I suspect if it touched me deeply.  I enjoy the two women priests 
when they give the sermon at the Episcopal church I belong to in 
Nashua.  But even closer to home, my mother-in-law is a minister's 
wife who all her life has been a devout Christian.  Her ability to 
quote a bible passage in a natural way in conversation or in reponse to 
a difficult situation or problem in the family continually amazes me.
She has a brilliant mind and long before she became my mother-in-law, 
she was my friend and a woman who inspired me.  At the end of the 
lecture as Marianne Williamson was signing my book, I mentioned to her 
that my 82 year-old mother-in-law enjoyed her books as much as I did.
She thanked me and said that my saying that meant a great deal to her 
as her father was 82 also and it was wonderfult to hear that his
generation valued her work. 

Hope this ansers your question!  ;')

Ro

/john (.89)

<Have you read "Story of a Soul" by St. Therese of Lisieux?

I've read quotes (is she the same person as Teresa of Avila?), but 
have not read the book.  I have read works by Hildegard of Bingen 
though and enjoyed them.

Tell you what /john, I'll read Story of a Soul, if you read one of 
Marianne Williamson's book!  ;')

Ro

St. Therese of Lisieux is not St. Therese of Avila.

/john

Note 654.59

>    Richard, Patricia's friends were not subjects of the Roman Empire.

I knew that.  I may be a heretic in your view, but I'm not *stupid*.
    
>    I only know Muslim women who live in the United States where there is a
>    guarantee of religious freedom.  They are devout.  I attended the
>    prayers and wedding of one.  Obedience to the Koran is a higher
>    priority in their life than what others consider "socially equal".

Fine.  I take it all the women wore veils?  What do you suppose the situation
would have been if even one woman hadn't?
    
>    Likewise there are Christian women I know who believe that Bible is a
>    better guide to life and the afterlife than feminist dogma.

Likewise there are Christian women I know who embrace both the Bible *and*
feminist thought.  The two are not mutually exclusive unless you make them
that way in your mind.

Richard

At least for those who were originally Christians, goddess spirituality is
more directed to destroying traditional religion than to seeking new sources
of truth.  It is unlikely that anyone believes the wisps of fairy tale that
practitioners call "goddess traditions".  In reality, ancient pagan deities
were not benign; historic witchcraft was not the pretty enchantment of a
movie Merlin.  Present-day understandings of primitive goddess religions
and of archaic witchcraft are based on scattered and uncertain sources in
mythology, legend and superstition and on trial records of less-than
absolute objectivity.  The Old Testament condemns the worship of "strange
Gods" as an abomination hateful to YHWH, involving ritual prostitution and
human sacrifice, but clinical detail is not provided, nor is its interior
logic explicated.  Temple prostitution, which feminist art historian Merlin
Stone admiringly calls "sacred sexual custom", was practiced in the Middle
East as worship honoring the goddess as patron of sexual love.  Some
authorities believe that children born to temple prostitutes were commonly
killed in sacrifice.  The faithless wife of Hosea left him to live as a
ritual prostitute.

Among many examples, Jer 7:16-34, condemning such idolatrous abuses as
offering "cakes for the queen of heaven" (Ishtar, Assyro-Babylonian goddess
of fertility, in v. 18) and the sacrificail immolation of children at
Topheth (v. 31).  Jer 19:5 and 32:35, 2 Chr 28:3 and 2 Kings 17:16-23 also
condemn child sacrifice and threaten God's punishment.  Hos 2:7-15, 1 Kings
14-24, 2 Kings 23:7 and Dt 23:18 mention sexual practices honoril Ba'al as
male principle of reproduction and goddess Asherah (Astarte Ashtaroth) as
his mate.  1 Kings 18:26-28 describes pagan ritual.  Nb 25:1-9 refers to
the early seduction of the Israelites from worship of Yahweh to worship of
the golden calf, referred to also in Hos 9:10 and Ps 106:19-23.  References
to later apostasies appear in Jg 2:11, 13 and 6:25,31; 1 Kings 16:31-32;
18:19; 19:10,14,18; 22:54; and 2 Kings 3:2-3; 10:18-28, among others, until
YHWH said, "Even Judah will I put out of my sight as I did Israel.  I will
reject this city, Jerusalem", and permitted the Babylonian captivity (2
Kings 23:27).

	*** Clarinet articles may not be forwarded outside Digital ***

	Date: Sun, 8 Aug 93 3:59:39 PDT

	NEW DELHI (UPI) -- A 4-year-old girl was sacrificed by a rural
landlord before a tribal goddess in northern India to ward off evil
spirits, the Press Trust of India reported Sunday.

	Tunu Murmu was killed Friday in a village near the city of
Jamshedpur, 140 miles (225 km) west of Calcutta, by a prosperous farmer
who wanted to propitiate the goddess, the news agency said.

	The child was ritually bathed in a pond before her body was pierced
by arrows and offerred to the deity, PTI said.

	The farmer was arrested by a local court, the report said.

How closely contemporaty witchcraft may resemble that of the past and to
what extent there is today a defined "thealogy" (because they refer to
a goddess rather than to God, feminists put the word in feminine form)
interpreting it for an "inner circle" of the enlightened are not entirely
clear.  Margot Adler, a "participant-observer" whose book "Drawing Down the
Moon" is the most authoritative internal report on the neo-pagan movement,
says that many "revivalist Witches" invent their own mythic stories,
unconcerned about authenticity or logical consistency because they assume
that psychic experiences are natural phenomena not yet understood; they "do
not believe in a supernatural".  Others follow esoteric theories originated
over the past century by entusiasts whose opinions, if they were ever taken
seriously by scholars, have been discredited.

Radically anti-male "Dianic" groups -- and Matthew Fox -- draw on the
theories of nineteenth-century anthropologist J.J. Bachofen, who held that
Stone Age European societies centered on the worship of Mother Earth lived
in matriarchal harmony until patriarchal males seized power some five
thousand years before Christ. (Relition, Myth, and Mother Right)  Elizabeth
Gould Davis popularized much the same views in "The First Sex" in 1971.

Theosophy, the enormously influential strand of nineteenth-century
occultism founded by Helena Petrovana Blavatsky, not only survives but
flourishes today in the strange but widely popular blend of gnosticism,
spiritualism, and scientism called the New Age movement.  While New Age
involvement is considered less bizarre than witchcraft, little in fact
separates the two, and devotees often dabble in both simultaneously. 
Occult author Isaac Bonewits, who claims to be a Druid priest, explains
that traditional witches always concealed their beliefs under "more
respectable" coloration (Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism in the 18th
century, Spiritualism and Theosophy in the 19th") while continuing to
practice the same "occult arts".  ("Witchcraft", Part III, Green Egg 9, no.
79, June 21, 1976)  Starhawk calls the goddess movement "a New Age revival"
of witchcraft; at Matthew Fox's Institute, where she teaches, witchcraft
blends easily into a predominantly New Age curriculum.  According to
neo-Pagan priestess Adler:

    There is a funny saying in the Pagan movement: "The difference
    between a Pagan and `new age' is one decismal point."  In other
    words, a two-day workshop in meditation by a "new age" practitioner
    might cost $300, while the same course given by a Pagan might cost $30.
				("Drawing Down the Moon, p.420)

The most monstrous of the neo-pagan innovators was Aleister Crowley, who
died in 1964.  According to historians of occultism, he was a heroin addict
and a frenetically promiscuous bi-sexual, too decadent even for the turn-of-
the-century English occultists in the Hermetic "Order of the Golden Dawn",
who expelled him.  He set up a perverse "abbey of satanic occultism,
dissipated his life in systematic practices of vilest "sex magic" and left
behid a trail of women degraded and terrified into madness.

Most current followers of "the Craft" insist that it is a benign nature
cult, concerned with subjective psychological development (the expansion of
"human potential") and preservation of the environment, having nothing to
do with statanism, sorcery, drug use or horrifying sexual orgies.  Insofar
as that is true, neo-paganism might be regarded as the practice of comparative
religion.  But it inspires little confidence in such protestations of innocence
to learn that Gardner's widely used rituals were written in collaboration with
Crowley or that the well-known English "white witch" Sybil Leek praised
Crowley's "contribution to occultism" on the cover of Francis King's chilling
biography of the man.  In her noteworthy book "The Changing of the Gods",
Naomi Goldenberg, a feminist who teaches the psychology of religion at the
University of Ottawa, mentions "the expression of sexuality in the ritual"
without elaboration, adding later that "witchcraft lets  sex follow its own
laws to a very large degree".  With a calm Christian readers are unlikely
to share, Margot Adler admits that some Wicca groups do employ sexual acts,
including the "Great Rite", but she indicates that such ritual practices
are rare and finds them not at all horrifying.  "In its highest form", when
priestess and priest "through ritual ... have drawn down into themselves
these archetypal forces", to "`incarnate' or _become_" the goddes and god,
the Great Rite is "a sublime religious experience", she says.  (Drawing Down
the Moon, pp.110, 143, 309)

This has only been a short exposition of what the Goddess Religion is
really about.  For anyone who has been a Jew or Christian and is tempted
by this religion, I say, "Turn back before it is too late."


		There shall be no strange god among you
		  nor shall you worship any alien god.
		I, the Lord, am your God
		  who led you forth from the land of Egypt.

					-- Psalm 81

    My note on Benjamin Bunny was hidden due to possible copyright
    issues.  Does the same apply here?

    Tom

    (I wish people would use their own words.)

To be a copyright violation (according to DEC lawyers in a memo posted
near many copiers) copying must include various factors or a combination
of factors, such as

	systematic
	extensive
	for profit

Copying of short extracts of a larger work in a non systematic manner for
internal use only is usually fair use.

/john

    John,
    
    I have read Margo Addler's book, Drawing Down the Moon which along with 
    Starhawk's book, The Spiral Dance are the two best known good books on 
    modern Neo-Paganism.  I also took a directed study last semester on
    Feminist Theology.  I participate monthly at my church's  Earth Based
    Spirituality rituals which the group deliberately decided not to call
    Pagan rituals.  I attended one Covenant of UU Pagans meeting in Salem,
    Ma.
    
    What I learned from reading Margo Addler's book is that there is no
    consistent Pagan theology.  Her section on the Pagan World view
    interested me very  much because it felt like the Pagan world view is
    very much like the UU worldview.  Very open, very non doctrinaire.
    
    The Pagan rituals that I have attended revolve around a direct personal
    encounter with the Divine in whatever form the participants choose to
    define the divine.  It starts by creating a sacred circle, channeling
    the energy of all who participate, and inviting Goddess/God in whatever
    form or forms the individuals hold to join the sacred circle.  There is
    then some free sharing of the particants.  Common questions may be what
    blessings have you experienced this week, How has the gifts of the
    season been important to you, what are you trying to create within
    yourself, for yourself, What qualities are you working toward bringing
    into your life.  The group is eight to 12 people.  Everybody shares. 
    Sometimes there is a communion ritual.  A strawberry communion is my
    favorite.  We accept the strawberry as a gift from the divine and as
    each person takes a strawberry and eats the strawberry each
    acknowledges what the strawberry as a gift means to us individually and 
    personally.  There may be singing or chanting as part of the circle. 
    One of my favorite chants is "The Goddess is Alive and Magic is afoot".
    This chant means the same thing to me as "God is love and miracles
    abound"  We end the ritual by thanking Goddess/God for participating
    and dissolving the sacred circle that we have created.  It is a
    beautiful and moving experience.  I do not consider myself a Pagan
    although I am moved by the serice.  This summer I have also been
    participating in services at the local Congregational church and I have
    been moved also by those services.  I recognize that there is much in
    Christianity that I have abandoned because I could not literally accept
    the Christian myths.  As I experience emotionally that myth is myth and
    that there is a truth in myth that is deeper than the literal truth or
    untruth I open myself to the possibility of profound religious
    experiences both within Christianity and outside of Christianity.  So I
    ask myself what does a universal body of Christ mean.  Is it the same
    thing as us UU's call the interdependent web of existence.  Is the holy
    spirit evoced in a Christian Service the same spirit of the North,
    East, South, and West evoced in a Pagan service.  I personally am a
    monotheist and therefore I believe that my prayer in the Congregational
    Church and my evocing Goddess/God to join me in a Pagan ritual is an
    evocation to the same Holy One.
    
    I am aware of how much of the Old Testament is obsessed with Paganism
    and I need to continue to try to understand that.  I have a very strong
    emotional reaction to the Elisha story in Kings about Elisha rounding
    up
    and inviting all the Pagans to worship with him in a Pagan ritual and
    then slaughtering all the participants at the end of the ritual.  That
    image creates for me the same feeling as the bombing of black churches
    or the vandalism of Jewish Synagogues.  The Goddess/God I worship does
    not condone bigotry in any form.  
    
    I will continue to study feminist history, the history and evolution of
    religion, and the Old and New Testament until I can better understand
    the bigotry and hate of paganism of the old testament and the apparent 
    bigotry against Judaism of the new testament.  And as I become less
    dualistic in my own thinking I can also accept that there is great
    beauty and truth in the scriptures in spite of the bigotry, hate, and
    meaness also contained in those documents.  I have great faith that
    Goddess/God's truth is much greater than the words recorded in the
    Bible.
    
    Patricia

    >We end the ritual by thanking Goddess/God for participating
    >    and dissolving the sacred circle that we have created.
    
    I reread my last note and think this needs to be clarified.  The ritual
    begins with the casting of the circle and the invocation to Spirit to
    join the circle and be with us.  The ritual ends with the thanking of
    Spirit for being with us and the opening of the circle.  I do not
    believe that the participants alone create the sacred circle.  There is
    a parallel to "wherever two are more of you are gathered, I will be
    there".  The sacred circle is created by joining together in
    celebration and inviting Goddess/God to be present with us in the
    celebration.  The ritual is then about sharing with each other and with
    Goddess/God our deepest feelings, hopes, aspirations, joys etc.  That
    joining together of participants and Goddess/God for ritual and
    celebration is what creates the sacred circle.

	LOS ANGELES (AP) -- A self-proclaimed priestess who claimed her
religion required her to have sex with parishioners isn't exempt
from state pandering and prostitution laws, a judge ruled Tuesday.

	Mary Ellen Tracy, leader of the Church of The Most High Goddess,
and husband Will Tracy, claimed they were victims of discriminatory
prosecution.

	Superior Court Judge Madeline Flier denied the couple's motion
for a ruling in their favor in their lawsuit against District
Attorney Gil Garcetti. Flier ruled that the Tracys had no standing
to challenge the law.

	Mrs. Tracy, also known as Sabrina Aset, was convicted in 1989 of
pandering and prostitution. She acknowledged having sex with her
followers and receiving money, which she said was given as a church
offering.

	She served five months in jail and her husband served six months
after being convicted of operating a house of prostitution.

	Mrs. Tracy said Flier's ruling deprived her and her husband of
their religious freedom.

	``It just completely annihilates the religion, which is exactly
what the arresting officer claimed he was going to do back in
1989,'' she said.

	In the lawsuit, the Tracys claimed they could continue operating
their church under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed by
Congress last year.

	The couple argued that new revelations brought their church
under the act. They did not elaborate on the revelations.

	Deputy District Attorney Marion Douglas said there was nothing
in the Tracys' lawsuit that showed a change in the basic practices
of the group.

I seriously doubt that their religious beliefs are sincere.  It sounds like
they thought they'd found a loophole that would allow them to run a brothel
with tax-free income ("contributions").

Does real worship of the Goddess require sexual acts between priestesses
and the male congregation?

				-- Bob

    There have been religions in the past where temple prostitutes (in
    modern terms) were an integral part. I've also heard vague tales of
    fertility goddess based religions that involve sexual activity as
    rituals, usually in the spring.

    I agree that this case is probably bogus. But who am I to judge? :-)

    		Alfred

re .108

See replies .95 through .101.

/john

    
    Anybody care to post the latest media articles on priests and ministers
    who are charged and convicted of sexual rape and molestation of their
    parishners, including young children?
    
    Point is - it happens in *all* religions denominations.  Yet it has 
    nothing to do with the religion itself.  
    
    Cindy

re .111

Cindy, this is a case of a religion which is claiming
that sexual acts _are_ the principal religious rite.

The "Church of The Most High Goddess" attempted to get an
exemption from the public morality laws by claiming that
sexual intercourse with the High Priestess is the way the
members of the "Church" practice their religion.

/john

    
    Re.107,.112
    
    Sorry, John, I misread the article.
    
    Having reread it, for some reason I feel there's a lot missing that
    would have to be presented before forming an opinion on the case.
    
    It does sound a bit strange though.  Even after reading the prior notes 
    you cited, still I do not know of any legit Goddess-related religion that
    endorses these kinds of practices.  So, in light of the article, I'd 
    be inclined to believe it is only a cover too.  Hard to say though.
    
    On a related subject - Joseph Campbell's "Power Of The Myth", with Bill
    Moyers, is on tonight and tomorrow night in the Boston area on Channel
    44, from 8-10-ish.  The Goddess religions are going to be discussed in
    one of the interviews, probably tomorrow night.
    
    Cindy
        

    Orgies were a regular part of some of the Gnostic Christian
    expressions.
    
    Richard
    

re .114

Which is just one of many reasons they were considered heretical.

/john

    .115  True.
    
    I noticed this organization calling itself "Church of the Most
    High Goddess" didn't claim to be Christian in affiliation or orientation.
    (Talk about your 'feel good' religions! ;-})
    
    Any idea of its origins?  (Please, I mean historical.  I don't mean
    Satan.)
    
    Richard
    

    
    Some fundamentalist/conservative Christians have had orgies too...and 
    in modern times at that!  
    
    Cindy

    .117
    
    Er, uh, first hand information there Cindy???? :-)

    
    Um, well, no, Nancy.  Unless you count watching the nightly news.  
    
    Cindy

RE:             <<< Note 654.117 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>
                                  -< and... >-

    
   > Some fundamentalist/conservative Christians have had orgies too...and 
   > in modern times at that!  
    
    

    And so have non Christians who consider themselves moral, upstanding
    citizens and pillars of society.




Jim

             
    Re.120
    
    Jim,
    
    Yes, perhaps, however it's a Christian opinion that these things 
    are wrong, so it would behoove Christians to behave according to
    what their religion says...'walking their talk', if you will.
    
    Non-Christians, by definition, are not Christians, and so may have
    a different view of such things.  However, if you do find the same
    people (non-Christians) condemning the activity that they are also 
    participating in, then they would be guilty of hypocrisy.
    
    I happen to feel that orgies are wrong, and so I don't participate
    in them. 
    
    Cindy

    .121
    
    >behoove Christians to behave according to
    >what their religion says...'walking their talk', if you will.
    
    I agree with you Cindy.  I really do.  But as a Christian who turned
    her back on God for near about 8 years... I also understand the
    rebellion is part of human nature, whether saved or not.
    
    I also believe that had I not turned back to God, he would have taken
    me home...
    
    

RE:             <<< Note 654.121 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>

             
       
   > Yes, perhaps, however it's a Christian opinion that these things 
   > are wrong, so it would behoove Christians to behave according to
   > what their religion says...'walking their talk', if you will.
    

    True indeed.  Christians are subject to the same temptations that
    non Christians are.  We are also human and at times succumb to
    those temptations (1John 1:9-2:6).  Certainly it is not a good
    testimony to their faith and I don't condone such actions, nontheless
    having backslid myself for several years, I understand.


    >Non-Christians, by definition, are not Christians, and so may have
    >a different view of such things.  However, if you do find the same
    >people (non-Christians) condemning the activity that they are also 
    >participating in, then they would be guilty of hypocrisy.
    
     absolutely.



   > I happen to feel that orgies are wrong, and so I don't participate
   > in them. 
    
   
    My gosh, Cindy!  We agree on something! ;-)

    .123
    
    Hey I agree too, does that makes us a minageatrois? :-) I dunno how to
    spel it..

    
    Re.123,.124
    
    No, can't be.....
    
    Cindy

	WOW! I don't believe it! A threesome....... of agreements! :-)


Glen