I would say "No", *my* God does not have a gender. Thus another strong need for the nueter pronoun I introduced in my first message to this list. (See "Looking for Gaia spiritual and/or religious movements") I don't have a problem with the bible or any other existing text saying God is male or even female, because I don't recognize these books as "the word of God" anyway. Perhaps we need to "reinvent" God(dess) at the beginning of every significantly different era in our evolution. I like to believe we are at the cusp of just such a change, a rapid evolution of our mostly disfunctional culture/society. I have found myself just as uncomfortable with the concept of Goddess as inherently female as the old notion of God as inherently male. Two wrongs don't make a right! David Munsey-Kano > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 10/12/98 6:13 PM: > > Hi! > > I subscribe to this newsletter for woman. This topic came up and I thought > some on this list would like to join in! > > Thanks! > Angela > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`` > > Does God have a gender? Just one of the many thought provoking discussions in > our Spiritual Circle as we look at <A HREF="aol://5863:126/mB:337478:1">women > reclaiming their spiritual power</A>. No matter what your thought on the > matter, it is clear that it is something that many of us have thought about. > > Tami Wynot share: I know within myself that God is not just one but two beings > ... He and She ... If God my man in his image ... than God also made woman in > her image ... nothing else makes any sense. > > And UM Prof became more aware in a course: The breakthough moment for me was > when the leader asked us to consider the questions, "How would your life be > different if you were taught that God was your mother, instead of your > father"? I can honestly say that the scales fell from my eyes at that point, > as I realized (1) the strangeness of calling the Spirit "he" or "father" or > "lord", when the Spirit has no need of sexual reproduction OR the equipment > required and (2) the tremendous cost to women of the rise of a patriarchal, > male deity. > > While Tan53van prefers to rely on the traditional view: If anyone cares to > check the Bible on this subject, it clearly states that God IS a male, plain > and simple, no ifs, ands or buts. Why is there such an outcry from women? > > Add your own opinion on this as well as many other issues large and small on > <A HREF="aol://4344:2478.message.26411679.560187895">Electra's Message boards > </A>. > > > > David Munsey-Kano P.O. Box 209 Cataumet, MA 02534 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.coopsports.com (508) 564-9512 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 13 04:33:48 1998 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 06:33:35 EDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MATRIOTS/religion In a message dated 98-10-12 18:49:34 EDT, you write: << The radical steps necessary to save what is left of the earth will be fought by many religions and capitalists and therefore it will be very hard to reconcile religious beliefs and Ecofeminism (in my view). Cheers, Marguerite >> Hi! Ecofeminism is separate and apart from religious beliefs? Are you impling here that all ecofems are non-religious? Or are you just saying the Ecofeminism and Christianity will not reconcile? I believe that there is a connection between while male supremacy and the domination of the females and the Earth - Isn't that really the fundamental definition of ecofeminist? What does the fact that I believe that God created these males and females and this Earth have to do with it? How does that change and what would you have to reconile about that? Thanks! Angela >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 13 06:56:39 1998 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 08:56:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Bertina Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: STUDIES IN WOMEN AND ENVIRONMENT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: family size,etc. In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I certainly agree with you on the limiting of children per family. In the 60s a little-known writer/scientist at the time Isaac Asimov wrote of the future problems with population and the need to lessen family-size to maximize the continuation of life on this planet. At the time it was probably a radical idea, but now it is far more feasible and necessary. IMHO, Bertina [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, bunny wrote: > > What is the answer? In my opinion a global acceptance (over time) of a one > or two children limit on children per family and enforcement of recycling > through > controling manufacturers outputs and that everyone turns vegetarian/vegan > (no more intensively farmed animals). > > The radical steps necessary to save what is left of the earth will be fought > by many religions and capitalists and therefore it will be very hard to > reconcile religious beliefs and Ecofeminism (in my view). > > Cheers, > > Marguerite > > > >
