NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious what the NS population thinks of this page:

http://website.lineone.net/~kwelos/thealogy.htm

Read at least a third of it before you vote or comment, if you please.

I'm sorry, but the original hebrew text calls god male, so that's why he's referred to that way in the Bible.
The idea that gender equality and religion are connected makes no sense either. Nearly all major religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) have been pro-male.
One of my English teachers is a fairly radical feminist, but some things just are the way they are. Gender equality in the workplace- absolutely needs to be improved and it hasn't been done enough yet. But to try and enforce gender equality on religion requires recategorizing every major religion, and frankly changing the essence of their beliefs.
You'd wind up with something radically different from the original religion.

I'm sorry, but the original hebrew text calls god male, so that's why he's referred to that way in the Bible.
The idea that gender equality and religion are connected makes no sense either. Nearly all major religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) have been pro-male.
One of my English teachers is a fairly radical feminist, but some things just are the way they are. Gender equality in the workplace- absolutely needs to be improved and it hasn't been done enough yet. But to try and enforce gender equality on religion requires recategorizing every major religion, and frankly changing the essence of their beliefs.
You'd wind up with something radically different from the original religion.
That's an interesting point. But you seem to be forgetting that Buddhism, Wicca, Paganism, and other religions are not patriarchal in nature. Anthropological studies are revealing that cultures that worship male gods have significantly higher rates of rape. The fact that three current major world religions are patriarchal is not enough evidence to support the notion that gender equality and religion are not connected in light of all the evidence that they are.

Anthropological studies are revealing that cultures that worship male gods have significantly higher rates of rape.
studies also show that in countries that dont worship trees there are alot of trees cut down.

source: me.

Meh.

Woo-hoo-hoo!
It's all been said.
Woo-hoo-hoo!
It's all been said.
Woo-hoo-hoo!
It's all been saaaaaaiiiiiid befoooooooooooore!

I work hard for a living to put food on the table, and when I try to relax with some NS I'm hit with a request that I read a long and boring diatribe on religion and feminism. Is it too much to ask that I be allowed to rest a bit? Go get me a cold beer.

That page is pretty interesting. Neo-Paganism sounds kind of cool, but since records of the original religious practices are likely to be incomplete, garbled, or nonexistent, I'm not sure I'd want to follow it, since I wouldn't know if what I was doing was completely stupid and nothing like the original practice or what. I'm also an atheist skeptic, but anyway. Now that I think about it, I guess you can apply that to any religion, or just historical stuff in general.

That's an interesting point. But you seem to be forgetting that Buddhism, Wicca, Paganism, and other religions are not patriarchal in nature. Anthropological studies are revealing that cultures that worship male gods have significantly higher rates of rape. The fact that three current major world religions are patriarchal is not enough evidence to support the notion that gender equality and religion are not connected in light of all the evidence that they are.

Obviously patriarchal religions will have a higher occurece of rape, simply because all too often the idea that man is the head of the household becomes man is in total charge and can do whatever he wants.
However, with the exception of Buddhism, those religions are not generally considered major (in terms of number of adherents). Any attempt to reform the three religions I mentioned would destroy the essence of those religions, and thus gender equality is a non-starter for them.

Would that be so bad, though? The world would probably be a better place if all the largest religions were centered around a peaceful nurturing goddess figure rather than a vengeful hardass warlord >_>

As a Communist I am opposed to all forms of religion and am a strong supporter of the feminist movement. The article is interesting and correctly points out how reactionary religious beliefs have been used to ensure the male domination of society. I however disagree with the recommendation of following a "spiritual path" as I don't believe there is a need for any form of spirituality or religion.

As a Communist I am opposed to all forms of religion and am a strong supporter of the femininst movement. The article is interesting and correctly points out how reactionary religious beliefs have been used to ensure the male domination of society. I however disagree with the recommendation of following a "spiritual path" as I don't there is a need for any form of spirituality or religion.
Hey, we finally agree on something!

I'm an atheist so it's irrelevant.

If anyone here thinks that there is a practical way to eliminate patriarchy in religion, by all means suggest it.
That said, one could argue the world would be a better place without religion entirely, simply because of the number of wars religion has caused.
However, this will NEVER happen. Too many people believe, and I for one feel that if there were no religion, no afterlife, only the prospect of here and now, life would be much more difficult to feel happy about. As it is, I'm fairly optimistic because I believe that somewhere, the things that I do now will be important in the future. I mean, without religion (Christianity), my father would never have stopped selling drugs or married my mom, and both would likely be dead. So I cannot possibly argue for the destruction of the essence of christianity, as I've seen, and owe my life to, its positive sides.
I'm probably inviting a backlash from the atheists by saying this, but on the community level, I've seen Christianity largely as an influence for good, not bad.

Would that be so bad, though? The world would probably be a better place if all the largest religions were centered around a peaceful nurturing goddess figure rather than a vengeful hardass warlord >_>
Here here, Valdyr! After all, many denominations of Christianity are adopting the notion that God is actually a genderless entity. That being the case, it doesn't really matter if we call God a he, a she, or an it. If we can encourage gender equality and reduce the rate of rape in our society by replacing the word God with Goddess in our religious texts, how can anyone possibly object? I mean, it'd be so easy!

Here here, Valdyr! After all, many denominations of Christianity are adopting the notion that God is actually a genderless entity. That being the case, it doesn't really matter if we call God a he, a she, or an it. If we can encourage gender equality and reduce the rate of rape in our society by replacing the word God with Goddess in our religious texts, how can anyone possibly object? I mean, it'd be so easy!

Easy! She says it would be easy! I live in BC, and we had Sikhs killing each other a few years back over whether or not chairs should be allowed in their temple. Chairs! And you think a gender change for God would be easy!?

Easy! She says it would be easy! I live in BC, and we had Sikhs killing each other a few years back over whether or not chairs should be allowed in their temple. Chairs! And you think a gender change for God would be easy!?
Well, we don't have to do it all at once. Maybe it would be good to start by just informing people about the problem. Male God = rape. Once people get that in their heads, maybe they won't be quite so upset about Goddess' new pen name.

Well, we don't have to do it all at once. Maybe it would be good to start by just informing people about the problem. Male God = rape. Once people get that in their heads, maybe they won't be quite so upset about Goddess' new pen name.

I don't think the equation is quite that simple. I'm a Christian, but I try and be openminded about it. I've had people tell me that I'm out to lunch and way too moderate (these are people I consider hard-line fundamentalists, but whatever). My point is that I don't accept that equation, so I doubt very much that those less moderate than me will.
Possible equation
(Inate perversion+sexual desire)X(disrespect to women-fear of punishment)= rape where disrespect to women=(background+beliefs+natural tendency to ignorance) and beliefs=man is superior to woman.

If He is male, then who is his 'better half'? Surely to goodness it can't be the devil, because the devil is also male

Who's to say that god isn't a homosexual?...ok, ok, several thousand religious texts, but what if god was ashamed of their homosexuality and covered it up with making those crazy disobedient cats Adam & Eve to make them perfect in all the ways in which god is not?

But then again, maybe god is a hermaphrodite...who knows? Certainly not us.

Who's to say that god isn't a homosexual?...ok, ok, several thousand religious texts, but what if god was ashamed of their homosexuality and covered it up with making those crazy disobedient cats Adam & Eve to make them perfect in all the ways in which god is not?

But then again, maybe god is a hermaphrodite...who knows? Certainly not us.

Thank you to all those who throw out hypothetical questions that bring me amusement!
P.S.- I don't mean that as an insult at all. And I think the pink text was an excellent touch.

I'm sorry, but the original hebrew text calls god male, so that's why he's referred to that way in the Bible.

Really? I wasn't aware that Hebrew was a gendered language and/or that the writers of the Bible exclusively used male imagery when referring to God. Fascinating. :)

YHVH, the judeo-christian god, comes from Canaanite mythology. In that pantheon, YHVH's consort was Ashera. God had a wife, and you can still find references to her in the OT.

Judges 2:13
And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. (Both Baal and Ashtaroth are Canaanite pantheon, as is YHVH).

Judges 10:6
And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth

1 Sam 7:4
Then the children of Israel did put away Baalim and Ashtaroth, and served the LORD only.

1 Sam 12:10
And they cried unto the LORD, and said, We have sinned, because we have forsaken the LORD, and have served Baalim and Ashtaroth

1 Sam 31:10
And they put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth

1 Kings 11:5
For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians

I guess YHVH and Ashera got a divorce when Abraham came along and borrowed the Canaanite's war god.

Here here, Valdyr! After all, many denominations of Christianity are adopting the notion that God is actually a genderless entity. That being the case, it doesn't really matter if we call God a he, a she, or an it. If we can encourage gender equality and reduce the rate of rape in our society by replacing the word God with Goddess in our religious texts, how can anyone possibly object? I mean, it'd be so easy!

Would that it were that easy. There's no way it would be possible to get the major religions to agree to this (major meaning in this context the major patriarchal religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). For the sake of all that's holy, Christians agreed that dogs had a soul while they were still unsure about whether or not women did! And Muslims think that women are such a strain upon the morals of men that they must be covered - even unto a degree that makes them more resemble a tent, in the case of some of the more extreme sects.
Even in the unlikely event that God appeared and somehow indicated that He/She/It/They was/were an alternate gender, people still wouldn't do it. Look at all the depictions of Jesus as a blue-eyed white man, despite any and all evidence that would indicate he would have looked like any other Hebrew man of his times. People believe what suits them, especially in the realm of religion.
Not to mention they'd forget to do so anyway. I mean, the majority of people (myself included) still frequently can't remember that he/she or him/her is now the PC term for an person of unspecified gender. ;)
And even while I typed that - did you ever notice that - for the most part - it's not she/he or her/him? Pervasive little cultural thingy, isn't it?

I'm sorry, but the original hebrew text calls god male, so that's why he's referred to that way in the Bible.
There is no such thing as an "original" text when it comes to the description of a god.

Really? I wasn't aware that Hebrew was a gendered language and/or that the writers of the Bible exclusively used male imagery when referring to God. Fascinating. :)

Okay then. How about Jesus being the son of God in the bible through Mary- unless you want to Argue that God is a lesbian?

I mean, without religion (Christianity), my father would never have stopped selling drugs or married my mom, and both would likely be dead. So I cannot possibly argue for the destruction of the essence of christianity, as I've seen, and owe my life to, its positive sides.

Any positive change of environment would have created such a change. There are LOTS of non-theists who have similar stories, but their change was something like simply getting a more positive group of people to be around.

I'm probably inviting a backlash from the atheists by saying this, but on the community level, I've seen Christianity largely as an influence for good, not bad.

I don't know if religion has done more bad then good or more good then bad, it most certainly has done a lot of both. If nothing else, many of the attrocities in history wouldn't have been possible or at least as easy to do were it not for biblical scripture that seems to condone them.

Easy! She says it would be easy! I live in BC, and we had Sikhs killing each other a few years back over whether or not chairs should be allowed in their temple. Chairs! And you think a gender change for God would be easy!?
And I thought it was a bit of a stretch for the Lilliputians and Blefuscuians to have a war over which side of the egg to crack (refering to Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels). :eek:

If there is such a thing as "evil", then it exists in men who do such things.

Any positive change of environment would have created such a change. There are LOTS of non-theists who have similar stories, but their change was something like simply getting a more positive group of people to be around.

I don't know if religion has done more bad then good or more good then bad, it most certainly has done a lot of both. If nothing else, many of the attrocities in history wouldn't have been possible or at least as easy to do were it not for biblical scripture that seems to condone them.

I agree about the positive change of environment. Still, it was only this particular change because someone cared enough to help him quit what he was doing.

I agree that it's difficult to say whether it has done more good or bad. Historically, I would probably say more bad, but presently, more good.

And I thought it was a bit of a stretch for the Lilliputians and Blefuscuians to have a war over which side of the egg to crack (refering to Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels). :eek:

If there is such a thing as "evil", then it exists in men who do such things.

Absolutely.
Nice to have someone cultured enough to read Swift with us.

Okay then. How about Jesus being the son of God in the bible through Mary- unless you want to Argue that God is a lesbian?

1. As I recall Mary was with child because of the Holy Spirit, not the Father.

2. I'm not arguing that God is female. I actually happen to believe that God transcends categories of sex, oddly enough.

1. As I recall Mary was with child because of the Holy Spirit, not the Father.

2. I'm not arguing that God is female. I actually happen to believe that God transcends categories of sex, oddly enough.

Fair enough. And you're right on that point. Occasionally I post without thinking, and I appreciate being corrected when I'm wrong.

Fair enough. And you're right on that point. Occasionally I post without thinking, and I appreciate being corrected when I'm wrong.

Level Up
+5 respect points

I would also like to mention that it is likely that God was often described as male to indicate the closeness of God's relationship to His (hehe) people because the Hebrews viewed the Father/Son relationship as the most powerful and intimate one.

I'll have to agree with Texan - nowhere in the Bible (since we're discussing it) does it actually say "God is [X] gender"

The reason I voted for the third option on the poll was that the first few paragraphs made it clear that the writer felt God "needed a better half" - as if (taking the Christian Bible as fact, for sake of argument) a "perfect being" couldn't be completely self-sufficient.

The whole point of using "he" when referring to God was to create some sort of tie-in to relate the Completely Infinite to a Purely Finite - in other words, an attempt to anchor God into some terms that the human mind can even begin to grasp.

Good points all round. And about gender transendence- if there's only one God how can he be defined by gender- I mean, the race of God would only have one gender, right? That's a little bit clumsy way to express it, but it makes sense, right?

Fair enough. And you're right on that point. Occasionally I post without thinking, and I appreciate being corrected when I'm wrong.

The world needs more people like you, dude.

The whole point of using "he" when referring to God was to create some sort of tie-in to relate the Completely Infinite to a Purely Finite - in other words, an attempt to anchor God into some terms that the human mind can even begin to grasp.

I once heard it described as like a frog trying to explain the world outside the pond to a tadpole. The tadpole, trying to understand, asks 'Is there water there?' and the frog says no. 'Are there fish there?' and again the frog says no. 'Are there water plants there?' and again the frog says no. He begins to describe flowers and humans and trees and sky, and all the tadpole can do is think that the frog is crazy. Obviously, none of those things are in the world.

That's exactly right.

I attempt to explain it by saying that God's quote-unquote "gender" is "Omnipotence".

It's a terrible play on words (since it contains the word "potence", and the obvious conotations), but I think the GIST of what it means is correct.

As far as the web page is concerned, its logic is flawed, and it makes basic assumptions that are inaccurate. For instance, the belief that Christians consider God to be a male. We don't. Any half-way knowledgeable Christian knows that God transcends gender, and that the "he" reference is merely for simplicities sake. And the way he follows up on it is pathetic. In other words, a load of stereotypical rubbish. Probably once more written by some fool who never read the Bible.

I stopped reading after the picture of the stone circle. The article attempts to link it to some form of 'earth mother' religion.

This is false. The circle in question is Castle Rigg near Keswick. As anyone who has visited it - myself for example - well knows, the actual purpose of the circle , and its date of construction, are still unknown.

I assume the rest of the article is equally uniformed drivel, full of offensive neo-pagan feel good hippy drivel.

Now get me a beer woman!