Random destinies

[aliantha]

The idea that God is male is a misconception perpetuated by a male-dominated society and male-dominated churchs (denominations). God (and the angels) are asexual.

Spot on, caam.

Rus: The Wikipedia article on theosis explained the Orthodox view on the topic first, then went on to define it in terms of other Christian faiths.

I stand corrected; Christianity apparently does encourage believers to "grow up" -- i.e., to become holy, to become more like God. I would note, however, that there's a difference between the idea of theosis and my original analogy. A healthy parent-teen relationship acknowledges that the teen's job is to become independent of the parent, and that the parent's job is to facilitate that. The Christian model of "growing up" is the exact opposite: the aim is not to break free of God the Father, but to become ever closer.

How are you coming on "A World Full of Gods"?

[rusmeister]

The idea that God is male is a misconception perpetuated by a male-dominated society and male-dominated churchs (denominations). God (and the angels) are asexual.

Spot on, caam.

Rus: The Wikipedia article on theosis explained the Orthodox view on the topic first, then went on to define it in terms of other Christian faiths.

I stand corrected; Christianity apparently does encourage believers to "grow up" -- i.e., to become holy, to become more like God. I would note, however, that there's a difference between the idea of theosis and my original analogy. A healthy parent-teen relationship acknowledges that the teen's job is to become independent of the parent, and that the parent's job is to facilitate that. The Christian model of "growing up" is the exact opposite: the aim is not to break free of God the Father, but to become ever closer.

How are you coming on "A World Full of Gods"?

Thanks, Ali!
Quick answer - nowhere (although I did download it). For what it's worth, I'm hardly even reading Chesterton now - and I still have a ton of stuff I want to read there. My plate is full, with four kids and three jobs. During the school year I am swamped. My wife had to push me to read to my daughter last night (Laura Ingalls' "Little House" series). It's there in my e-library, patiently awaiting its turn.
I've come back here temporarily because it's the only place where I do any communication with English native speakers at the moment (I do miss the good ol' USA!).

Yes, the Orthodox model is perhaps opposite in that sense - but we see such separation as isolation - loneliness - which is one of the aspects of hell. (so much for "all my friends will be there...") But the grown-up teen wants to remain in communion and grow closer in understanding and love with his parents, n'est-ce pas? And in any event, how could it be otherwise if we accept God's omnipresence? There could be no "going away from God", although that is what Hell is sometimes expressed as - the absence of God. Another way of expressing Hell is as actually being in God's presence for eternity when you have made it impossible for you to bear or accept that Presence ("our God is a burning fire...")

Trying to explain the unexplainable, and there is a lot where Orthodoxy is more 'agnostic' than, say, the Catholic Church...

[caamora]

One thing I do think you are right about here is that some developments in western Christendom did lead some societies to treat women as somehow less than men towards the end of the Middle Ages. But this actually contradicts the idea that there was a specific "Feminine in the Godhead" in Christian (even western Christian) teaching - which, for nearly a millenium and a half prior to that, had always been specific that God had revealed Himself in a specifically male form, unlike paganism - and it was that Christian teaching that dominated long before the Renaissance and Reformation. From the very beginning of Christianity this was a teaching that was never in doubt. And it was that particular religion, and what was common to it, that dominated the Western world from the 4th century to the 20th.
If you meant "squeezed out of pagan conceptions of a Godhead" (although this term was never used regarding paganism), then of course - only it was paganism itself that was squeezed out and died.

Christianity stemmed from Judaism as we all know, which was another male-dominated religion/culture. Only paganism had women in positions of equality. In Western Europe prior to the plague, women enjoyed much more equality with men. They owned businesses and paid an average of 30% of the taxes. They had bridal purses (money that they kept) instead of dowries (which went to the husband) seen later. So, no, I meant to say that females - because of the church - lost all of their equality.

To people who so resoundingly reject Christianity (and I charge that they do so largely without really knowing it in its fullness, especially in historical terms) I can only say, "This is what the (eastern) Orthodox (or western Catholic) Church has always taught". Thus, my views are not 'mine' at all in a personal sense, as I accept an outside authority as knowing more than I do.
There's not much I can say about your views, except that it appears that your basis for saying so is highly personal.

Actually, I am a devout Christian and in particular, Catholic. I have my bachelor's degree in history, Western European history.

[Xar]

One thing I do think you are right about here is that some developments in western Christendom did lead some societies to treat women as somehow less than men towards the end of the Middle Ages. But this actually contradicts the idea that there was a specific "Feminine in the Godhead" in Christian (even western Christian) teaching - which, for nearly a millenium and a half prior to that, had always been specific that God had revealed Himself in a specifically male form, unlike paganism - and it was that Christian teaching that dominated long before the Renaissance and Reformation. From the very beginning of Christianity this was a teaching that was never in doubt. And it was that particular religion, and what was common to it, that dominated the Western world from the 4th century to the 20th.
If you meant "squeezed out of pagan conceptions of a Godhead" (although this term was never used regarding paganism), then of course - only it was paganism itself that was squeezed out and died.

Christianity stemmed from Judaism as we all know, which was another male-dominated religion/culture. Only paganism had women in positions of equality. In Western Europe prior to the plague, women enjoyed much more equality with men. They owned businesses and paid an average of 30% of the taxes. They had bridal purses (money that they kept) instead of dowries (which went to the husband) seen later. So, no, I meant to say that females - because of the church - lost all of their equality.

To people who so resoundingly reject Christianity (and I charge that they do so largely without really knowing it in its fullness, especially in historical terms) I can only say, "This is what the (eastern) Orthodox (or western Catholic) Church has always taught". Thus, my views are not 'mine' at all in a personal sense, as I accept an outside authority as knowing more than I do.
There's not much I can say about your views, except that it appears that your basis for saying so is highly personal.

Actually, I am a devout Christian and in particular, Catholic. I have my bachelor's degree in history, Western European history.

Not to be picky, but it might be better to specify that "only paganism had women in positions of equality" is of course applicable only within the borders of Western Europe. Zoroastrianism, the earliest known monotheistic religion (from which Judaism is believed to have borrowed some concepts which it turn were passed on to Christianity) also treated women as equals. In fact, the current practice of some Zoroastrian sects in India whereupon the child of a male worshipper and female non-worshipper is also considered Zoroastrian, but the child of a female worshipper and a male non-worshipper is not, has been challenged based exactly on the concept that Zoroastrian religion holds women to be equal to men in all regards. Just sayin'

[Menolly]

Also, weren't the Sisters of the Celtic Catholic Church granted near equality? I admit what little I know about that is based on fiction...

As far as Judaism goes, even within the religion itself, the concept of women as second class citizens is misunderstood. The Zohar holds that women are innately closer to the Source, hence their duties of caring for house and home. Men need work harder to draw nearer, so they are given additional duties involving ritual outside the home.

But it is the women who draw in and embrace all Holy Days, with the simple act of lighting and blessing the flame of the candles...

And similar to what Xar said regarding Zoroastrianism, Judaism takes the opposite approach and follows matrilineal descent, meaning the mother's religion determines the religion the child is born in to. So if the father is Jewish, but the mother is not, the child is not born in to the tribes, but is a member of the mother's religion.

How can that be considered second class, once it is understood?

[Cybrweez]

I'm curious, what is "treating as equals" mean?

[rusmeister]

One thing I do think you are right about here is that some developments in western Christendom did lead some societies to treat women as somehow less than men towards the end of the Middle Ages. But this actually contradicts the idea that there was a specific "Feminine in the Godhead" in Christian (even western Christian) teaching - which, for nearly a millenium and a half prior to that, had always been specific that God had revealed Himself in a specifically male form, unlike paganism - and it was that Christian teaching that dominated long before the Renaissance and Reformation. From the very beginning of Christianity this was a teaching that was never in doubt. And it was that particular religion, and what was common to it, that dominated the Western world from the 4th century to the 20th.
If you meant "squeezed out of pagan conceptions of a Godhead" (although this term was never used regarding paganism), then of course - only it was paganism itself that was squeezed out and died.

Christianity stemmed from Judaism as we all know, which was another male-dominated religion/culture. Only paganism had women in positions of equality. In Western Europe prior to the plague, women enjoyed much more equality with men. They owned businesses and paid an average of 30% of the taxes. They had bridal purses (money that they kept) instead of dowries (which went to the husband) seen later. So, no, I meant to say that females - because of the church - lost all of their equality.

To people who so resoundingly reject Christianity (and I charge that they do so largely without really knowing it in its fullness, especially in historical terms) I can only say, "This is what the (eastern) Orthodox (or western Catholic) Church has always taught". Thus, my views are not 'mine' at all in a personal sense, as I accept an outside authority as knowing more than I do.
There's not much I can say about your views, except that it appears that your basis for saying so is highly personal.

Actually, I am a devout Christian and in particular, Catholic. I have my bachelor's degree in history, Western European history.

It's difficult to respond to this, and the stand of the Catholic Church itself is part of the reason why. The problem is whether a person need accept the Church's teachings in order to be a member in good standing. Traditionally, the Catholic Church required acceptance of its teachings. I am open to correction on this, but that appears to have changed only in the 20th century - I would guess after Vatican II? It appears to be certain now that a person can claim to be Catholic and disagree with its teachings and still be a member in good standing. This is simply not possible in the Orthodox Church. You can't (couldn't, re: the RCC) claim to be a devout Orthodox Christian and think that the Godhead is, in part or wholly, feminine. Even now I am skeptical of a claim to be Catholic and also claim a Feminine aspect to the trinity. I would think that that is something that an individual could not hold an opinion on and be Catholic. You can't hold opinions on something that is dogma on the basis of revelation, especially when it is central to the faith. You either accept it (like it or not) or don't accept it, and don't accept the Faith.

FWIW, I now hold degrees in history and literature to be nearly worthless (I have an MA in literature). If you don't know the philosophical basis of literature, you don't really know literature. If you don't know literature, you don't really know history. If you don't know history you can't understand the time in which you find yourself.

The two things I would comment on are that you appear to have a worldview which identifies equality of the sexes with identicality of the sexes; at the very least, a level one unquestioned dogma appears to be that men and women should have identical aptitude for all aspects of life, and that the basis of society should be the individual, rather than the family. (If the family, then obviously the unit is more important than the individual - your ideas seem to be predicated on the importance of the individual over the family.)

The second is in regard to your statement:

I meant to say that females - because of the church - lost all of their equality.

This is really a rather easy thing to challenge. First of all, "what Church?" I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that all of the history you studied treats the Catholic Church as the only Christian Church until the Reformation, and almost completely ignores the existence (never mind the composition) of the Eastern Church. Secondly, even if we confine ourselves to the Roman Church, what Church actions deprived women of their equality? And what exactly do you mean by equality? All of that, of course, leaves the eastern half of Christendom out of the picture and such arguments cannot be applied to it.