Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re .0
                                                                          
Sounds neo-Pagan to me; appears to violate the First Commandment; wouldn't
expect this "Goddess" to get much approval as either a Christian Perspective
or as a Jewish Perspective.

Christians who approve of this would appear to be syncretists and therefore
either confused or not very good Christians.

I could _taunt_you_another_time_ by suggesting you _post_ this in the Bagels
conference for discussion.  The _taunt_ is meant to be educational.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that it has anything to do with
Christianity.

True Christianity would say of this that an honest person following this path
only reaches Truth by arriving at the Holy Trinity and abandoning other deities.

/john

    re: .1

    >>You'll have a hard time convincing me that it has anything to do with
    >>Christianity.

    I personally, am not trying to convince you of anything, John.  I think
    the original note was simply posted for discussion.  It's interesting
    to me to see how quickly you dug a foxhole, began piling up the
    sandbags, aiming your artillery, and began planning your defense.

    Do you thing the Truth is so frail that it needs such ardent defense?

    Love in Christ,
    Ruth

>I could _taunt_you_another_time_ by suggesting you _post_ this in the Bagels
>conference for discussion.  The _taunt_ is meant to be educational.

    Why do you insist on repeating yourself on this score, as if to suggest
    that only Christianity has experienced a movement in feminist theology,
    when it has already been pointed out to you that feminist theology is
    also a movement within Judaism?  Or are do you like being obstinate
    just for the fun of it?  

    I have no doubt that participants in Bagels would be offended by a
    discussion of the Goddess, JUST AS PARTICIPANTS HERE ARE.  Whoop de
    doo.  I don't think anyone here is claiming that Christians have a
    monopoly on intolerance.

    -- Mike

    MIke,
    
    Thanks for your reply and for your suggestion regarding Judith
    Plaskow's book.  Actually Judith Plaskow's book Standing again at Sinia
    was perhaps my favorite Feminist Theology book that I read this
    semester.  Judith is a Feminist and a Jew and is working hard to 
    articulate a theology that celebrates both those aspects of herself.
    
    First of all she rejects a literal interpretation of the bible.  A
    literal interpretation of the bible clearly identifies God as a man and
    only men as created in the image of God.  
    
    Her title Standing again at Sinai recognizes that the Exodus story told
    in the Torah tells of a covenant between a God and Men.  The
    circumsized penis as the sign of the covenant explicitly excludes women
    as does God's warning for Moses to tell the people to stay away from
    women for three days to prepare them for the meeting with God.
    
    A literal interpretation of the Bible, obviously defines women as other
    and not part of the covenant.  As a Jewish Woman Plaskow asserts that
    women were very much part of the covenental community and it is not the
    covenant itself that excludes women but the telling of the story by men
    that excludes women.  Women must dig through historic and archeological
    evidence and recover their "herstories" and rewrite the liturgy to
    celebrate the holidays in a way that includes everyone.
    
    Judith Plaskow prefers to utilize the word 'God' as a genderless word
    but does assert that the use of the term 'Goddess as a substitute for
    the term God and even perhaps the use of pagan ritual when the
    Goddesses are used as metaphor for different aspects of one unifying
    realilty is consistent with Jewish Monotheism.  This discussion of the
    Goddess is a small portion of Plaskow's book.
    
    Plaskow talks about Covenant, Law, Community, and our relationship to
    God.  She advocates leaving behind the angry, punitive, authoritarian
    God in favor of the gentle, loving, Creative, Inspiring, egalitarian
    God.  An image of God that is also found in the scriptures but because
    of the patriarchal writing and editing of the scriptures, not as
    prevalent.  I would recommend her books to anyone truly interested in
    the subject.
    
    
    Patricia

    Why is "metaphor" superior to the truth which Jesus has revealed to us?
    
    Genesis 17:3 contains the Abrahamic covenant.  It "clearly identifies"
    the descendants of Abraham as the people with whom the covenant is
    made, not male descendants, but descendants.
    
    That Plaskow believes Genesis "clearly defines" women as not part of
    the covenant is irrelevant.  The fact is that women for thousands of
    years held and hold the belief that they are part of the covenant.
    
    Where, in Plaskow's view, was the error introduced?  God? The author of
    Genesis?  Interpreters of Genesis?

    Patricia,
    
    I read "Standing Again at Sinai" a few years ago, and I agree with you
    that it is truly a wonderful book.  I had forgotten much of what you
    mentioned; thanks for bringing up those issues that she had raised in
    her book.  One of the ideas that I especially liked was the way she
    described a feminist perspective of God not as one who lords over us,
    but rather as a co-creator, friend, and lover.
    
    -- Mike

    Plaskow does a wonderful job of creating an image of God as one who is
    a co-creator, friend, lover(Well mike, I do have a little bit of
    trouble with that one).
    
    Plaskow knows from Biblical History and archeology that the Bible was
    writen by men from a totally male perspective.  A Bible written by
    Hebrew Women of the day would have been a totally different document.
    Modern Historians and Archeologist need to work hard at recovering the
    parts of the story that were left out.
    
    I don't know many Jewish folks who believe in the Bible as the inerrant
    word of God.  Those I know either skip over the parts that exclude
    women or are as offended by them as I am.
    Patricia

>    First of all she rejects a literal interpretation of the bible.  A
>    literal interpretation of the bible clearly identifies ...
>    only men as created in the image of God.  

You keep saying this, but it is simply not true.  Not true at all.  PLEASE
understand that you have been lied to by the feminists.  They wish to exclude
themselves from historically inclusive words by this lie.  PLEASE understand
and begin your healing process.  I mean this with all sincerity.

Genesis 1:27:  "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God
he created them; male and female he created them."

Now, granted, this is the NRSV.  However, at the time that the KJV and
RSV were written, the word "man" was clearly understood to mean "the human
species", not the male of the species.  The KJV and RSV are clear that
man was created male and female.  The change in meaning of "man" is a
result of the feminist lie I mentioned earlier.

For example, the German is "Gott schuf also den Menschen als sein Abbild;
als Abbild Gottes schuf er ihn.  Als Mann und Frau schuf er sie."

The German word "Mensch", which was used by both Luther and by the current
translators of the Bible explicitly refers to the human species.  Luther even
used the biological terms for the male and female of a species ("M�nnlein"
and "Weibchen") -- both of which happen to be NEUTER.

An honest literal interpretation of the Bible shows that God created both
male and female humans in his image.  In fact, his image is not complete
without both.

/john

    Curious question:  John, you are quoting Genesis 1 where it is clear
    that both humans were created at the same time.  How does this
    reconcile with Genesis 2 where Eve is derivitive from Adam?
    
    Rabbinic tradition uses Genesis 1 as the source for Lilith who rebels
    and flees Eden -- so it is not really clear that Eve is meant to be
    equal with Adam as Genesis 1 indicates.  The woman of chapter 1 is not
    the same as the woman of chapter 2.
    
    If Christianity doesn't beleive the Rabbinic interpretation, how does
    it reconcile two very distinct origins for women in Genesis?  Is being
    made *from* something considered eqaul with being made at the same time
    in creation?
    
    Daniel

    
.8, "lied to by the feminists" ...

Oh by all means, watch out for those prevaricating feminists! You can't be 
too careful there...

I know it's becoming fashinable to blame feminists for Just About 
Everything, but I do believe this is a first - blaming feminists for 
generalizing the word "man", which initially did mean Generic Human Being, 
to also mean Adult Human Male. Neat trick! Of course, feminists would have 
had every reason for doing this...

BTW, re Genesis - somehow the idea that woman was created from man's
(that's Adult Human Male's) rib has always struck me as just a teeny
departure from the truth? I mean, I can understand males' envy of the
females' creative power, but... 

Oh well. Probably some lying feminist's fault, ;-)

Dorian

    See note 432.7 for an alternative Jewish interpretation of Genesis 2.
    
    -- Mike

    >See note 432.7 for an alternative Jewish interpretation of Genesis 2.
    
   > -- Mike
    
	You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.
    
    	I thought that phrase was very appropriate here; many will read
    	that note but many still won't buy it. I agree with what was said
    	there, and I thought it was well put.  Will that end the He/She
    	God/Goddess controversy ?.   From what I have seen here, I would
    	have to say: probably not.
    
		      Juan	

>    Curious question:  John, you are quoting Genesis 1 where it is clear
>    that both humans were created at the same time.  How does this
>    reconcile with Genesis 2 where Eve is derivitive from Adam?

Thanks to Mike, we have a Jewish exegesis of Genesis 2 which shows that
the Bible is indeed consistent and continues to show that it is humankind
that is created in God's image.  It should also be noted that the meaning
of creation from Adam's side is equality, not aboveness or belowness.

>	So let us hear the story in in this way:  God makes an androgynous
>	Human in the image of an androgynous God.  And then God decides it
>	is not good for the Human to be alone.  Perhaps it is the Human who
>	thinks so first, learning from the procession of male and female
>	beasts that go past him to be named, that it is not good to be
>	alone.  But if it is Adam who notices, it is God who agrees...
>
>	So the original Adam, the androgynous Adam, is divided.  So that
>	each human might have a counterpart, the two sides of Adam, male and
>	female, are separated.  Not a rib but a side (they are the same word
>	in Hebrew, as Samuel ben Nachman pointed out) is taken to make the
>	woman; the other side becomes the man...

    Are you saying that Mike's note is, in your opinion, a Christian view
    of the creation sequence in Genesis 2?

The part of it which I quoted is not opposed by any Christian teaching.

/john