Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: God's gender
Message-ID: <674@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Dec-83 11:59:07 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.674
Posted: Tue Dec 13 11:59:07 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Dec-83 01:43:21 EST
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 25

> Not all flavors of Christianity demanded a masculine Deity, either in
> the early christian church, or today.  Gnostic Christian literature is
> replace with references to G-d the Father, The Mother and the Son --
> and contains other scriptures with G-d specifically designated as 
> androgynous.

	I think that you are correct, given a liberal view of the term
Christianity.  There are a plethora of religions today which profess to be
Christian religions, when it is plain that they are not.  Comparing the old
Gnostics to Christianity is, I think, dangerous; It is easy to find numerous
texts that point out Gnostic errors.  I certainly wouldn't want to try
to defend the Inquisition, who believed they were Christians carrying out the
will of God, when any fool even only slightly versed in New Testament
Scripture could see otherwise.

	I think my point is obvious.  This will probably raise the question,
"What, then, do you define as Christianity?"  It is of course easy for any
individual to create his own definition of Christianity, thus making any kind
of logical argument impossible.  If we can stick to Christianity's roots (that
is, the Bible Itself) we can find a complete definition; after all, most of
the Author's quotes can be found there. 

	-- Dave Norris
	-- ..uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david