Is there such a thing as a deity?

I believe that this is quite clear- although necessarily subject to interpretation. The irony here is that I acknowledge the interpretational bias but I insist on certain aspects...just like those who choose to ram it down your throats.

I belive in God, no I don't have any proof all I can say is that believing helps me in all aspects of my life. I also don't hide that I believe but I also don't impose my beliefs on others.

Some people are going to think this it pretty far out there but, here ya go. I believe that not only is there a God watching over us but, that he is in partnership with a Goddess. I think that there are many worlds out there we can not even comprehend. I think that they there are Gods of these other worlds as well.

There's more of that mindset than you may be aware of Hokeshel. Along with the Heavenly Mother concept that you are familiar with, many faith traditions acknowledge the presence of the Divine Feminine with their concept of God or within their understanding of multiple deities.

I, personally, have a problem with the concept of a Divine Feminine. Granted, I'm coming from a Judeo-Christian background, but I just can't grasp it. It just doesn't "feel" right to me. In the Cherokee tradition, of which I'm learning more of since I found out of my heritage, they also see "God" as being male more than female. I don't know that I'll ever be able to accept a goddess or divine feminine idea. It may be fine for someone else, they're welcome to believe what they want, but I think it's wrong.

Mamab, when you say God is more male than female are you referring to two different beings, as I am, or; are you referring to one God that has a feminine and masculine side? Do you mean that there may be some feminine Godly influence ro that there is only masculine influence? DO you believe in multiple Gods or just one?

brief interjection: Were one to follow a traditional Judeo-Christian interpretation, then by definition that would be strictly a singular deity. I really don't think that the question of gendered alignment is a core concern as far as theology goes, BUT in social terms it's a significant question. One could argue that the insistence on an interpretation of He and our Heavenly Father is rooted in a chauvinist patriarchy which often manifests in most societies graced by the Judeo-Christian presence, but as you can see this is quite obviously an issue of gender politics more than anything else.

Early Christianity certainly was more diverse in its understanding of Deity than what became normative Christianity at the time of the various councils and the final assembly of the New Testament canon. The Unitarianism of the 17th through the 19th century can trace itself back to early days, as can just about any gnostic version of Christianity, as well as the concept of the Father, Son, and Spirit being separate entities with the last two working under the direction of the Father.

It is important to remember that what we have come to think of as traditional or normative Christianity did not emerge full blown - it took a lot of infighting for power and a lot of political manuevering to come up with what most folks would swear is "true" Christianity.

One thing I do wonder about - are there are documented works from the first century or two of Christianity that tell us more about the role of women in the early church? That to me seems to be a missing piece of the puzzle, aside from the occasional reference here or there.

Thanks for that. The interesting (or frustrating) thing is that as far as politics goes, at present a consideration of the histoy of the Church is seen as largely irrelevant, although it could really shed some very important light on what is consistent and what isn't (because that's always a huge argument).

I suspect that documented works from the early days of Christianity would have been lost, either because they've scattered to the winds or because they were systematically destroyed as part of a patriarchal plot, or perhaps because the patriarchy already existed in society, they were never written.

I suspect you are correct, Dong. Destroying documents so that a new status quo can be achieved, or as a means of protecting a status quo, is not anything new.

Heck, think of all we could know about the cultures of the indigenous American cultures if so much of their records had not been destroyed by European explorers and their attendant priests, who wanted to rid the natives of their heathen ways.

We've heard of other cultures (Aztecs, ancient Chinese) wiping themselves out in a spectacular cultural implosion, and examples of attempts to great cultural Purges (Cultural revolution in modern China, Hitler's attempt to subvert all culture under a religion with himself as its deity), but the unfortunate truth (and one that does nothing to alleviate the troubles of an embattled institution) is that the cultures motivated by Judeo-Christian derived ideology had this habit not only of repressing documented evidence in their own societies but also destroying that of others (for God is the one and only...why would any other be relevant?)

This is why I get annoyed when budding (and well-established) Christian apologetic scholars claim that the most compelling proof of Christianity (notwithstanding the inherent problem in THAT) is that it has the most documented proof- this is because wherever the Church is culturally dominant, it naturally suppresses documents that detract or dare to suggest otherwise than its own specific agenda, be that what it may in whatever era. That's the downside of having a regulated core.

One specific example I can think of is Diego Landa, who purged many important Mesoamerican documents at the time of the Spanish conquest. I think he was a Francisan, but I can't remember for sure. Only a few documents were "saved," and only because they had been previously discarded into trash piles where they couldn't be found by prying Spaniards.

Yes,I remember reading about this. Destroying the documents was meant to make the forced conversion to the "true faith" easier, as it eliminated references for future generations and demonstrated the "inferior" nature of MesoAmerican faith traditions. Would that more of those documents had been spared. I can't help but think we would have learned a great deal from them.

I do believe in God, and that there is one God, but I really don't care that much. I stopped being religious and consider myself a former catholic, so really I don't care and it is not really important to me as a religious factor. I am happy in my life, and that gives me the feeling that God is with me! I know, weird, but it works for me!