Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ora!daemon
From: morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Newspaper Article
Message-ID: <1990Oct18.004827.28221@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 18 Oct 90 00:48:27 GMT
References: <4836@sarah> <1990Oct12.214229.23575@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <60497.271b504a@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> <26502@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 30
Approved: ambar@ora.com

bweiss@cs.arizona.EDU (Beth Weiss) writes:

>Is it true that god prefers to talk to men, or is it true that only
>men were listened to at that time, and so times god talked to women
>weren't recorded?  Certainly, Christ is male.  All the _published_
>prophets are male.  But I don't think that means women are purely
>auxiliary.

If you really *want* to believe in God, I suppose you can construct
various hypotheses that preserve a non-sexist god. Why, though?

Besides, by doing so, you're leaving canonical Judaeo-Christian-Islam,
which is the subject of this thread.

No, women aren't auxiliary except in the scriptures.

>If you view the Bible as the true word of god, then certainly you
>have to assume that god talks primarily to men.  However, a theist who
>views the Bible as a collection of people's views of the word of god
>might well wonder if the literate men may have modified any section
>that referred to (or should have referred to) women.

Like I said, by doing so we would stray from the original thread. Why
bend over backwards to preserve the non-sexist god, though. What does
feminism gain from this exercise? Not a whole lot, as far as I can
tell. Comments?

Jones
Physics Dept.
Caltech