--- Bizarro7@aol.com wrote: >
Unfortunately, Judeao-Christian theologians have historically used the strict characterization of God as a literal male to turn the female half of their number into second-class members of the faith,
I'm not sure about the term 'literal male'. But I wouldn't deny that the use of male language about God has historically underpinned patriarchal attitudes.
still unworthy of clerical priesthood and needing to yeild obedience to a man because he does not carry the burden of that nasty sin with the apple, back in the Garden of Eden.
I think that depends which Christians or Jews you ask.
What amazes me is our continued compliance with
these
ideas, 3 THOUSAND years later. Sometimes, I don't think the dark ages actually ended.
I wouldn't (in this forum at least) want to argue any point more controversial than the idea that if you concieve God as being timeless and eternal it is rather silly to refer to God as being male in any meaningful sense of the word. I agree that such silliness has underpinned a great deal of injustice in the past and present.
Stephen.
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie