Earthymama, I'm intrigued by some of what you said, particularly about your views of nature and all beings as being sacred and therefore should not be violated. Although we have a slightly different take on what exactly 'sacred' means with regard to nature, I'm pleased to see that we both agree that nature must be respected - I often think of the Native American view of Mother Nature and think that if only we had all learned from them, the world would be facing a far different ecological future today.
Also, when you say "Most of us prefer the term "Goddess" for the weaver of this web, but we also recognize an eclectic pantheon of Goddesses and Gods" - this is pretty much the opposite of what's done linguistically in the three 'main' religions, isn't it? Do men within your faith feel that this use of language is on the gender exclusive side?
I can't speak for Hebrew (Judaism) or Arabic (Islam), but certainly the limitations of the English language give Christianity no gender-neutral personal pronoun to refer to 'he and she as one', and the word 'God', while it generally is used to refer to the male, is sometimes used to convey the sense of both genders (or, as I said earlier, both aspects of God's character). Some people within my faith prefer the definite gender neutrality of the term 'the Creator'.
So people of faith work within the limitations of their language, and we also accept that our sacred texts are limited, being born of distant cultures which vary enormously from our own.
onagar - a person of faith who believes in love above all, social justice, total equality among all people, etc, is clearly not reinforcing the bigotry within certain corners of their religion; if anything they're confronting and shaming it. To say that religion is bigoted because some religious people are bigoted is like saying that humanity is bigoted because some humans are bigoted and have incorporated this into the way they live/ define their culture. Or, as I said earlier, my example of sex being used for harm.
dittany - thanks for that link to the feminist bible, I will take a good look at that. However, you later show in your post to Madhairy that you've perhaps not read my post which draws a distinction between the church, God and Christianity (or other religions). I did say also that some believers fail to draw this distinction, so it's not just you! But the result in your case and theirs is misunderstanding.
Also, I feel as though you're still pulling out quotes from the Bible without understanding (or accepting) my and others' explanations. Look at it this way: the Bible is a bloody difficult text to understand. Respected theologians accept this, and for centuries people have struggled with its barbarism, contradictions, and legalism, as well as the beauty of poetry and frankly bizarre statements of prophecy, let alone allegories which some people take as historical fact, and historical facts which are backed up by evidence. So it is extremely complex. You said yourself that you don't know the Bible very well, you're just pulling quotes. With this in mind, and bearing in mind that people with multiple degrees in theology struggle with it and disagree with each other over it, I think the way you're using it is not helpful nor insightful - though I understand why you're doing it, and the points you're trying to prove, you're scratching the surface of something which is deeper and more complex than the deepest ocean.
To correct your points about Mary and virginity and the Catholic Church, as a non-Catholic it seems to me that the issue is not so much that it's applauding her for being a virgin, as that it's saying this is evidence of Jesus not being Joseph's son. And that in itself is a whole kettle of fish which I'm still exploring so can't give you a definitive answer on what that means wrt the divinity of Jesus. I may be wrong - perhaps a Catholic can explain better? Also, (to ilovemydog) she wasn't yet a married woman - she was engaged to be married, and within that culture, especially at her young age, it is highly unlikely that she would not have been a virgin.
Thanks also to frankly for the Banishing Eve link - I'd heard an ad for the prog and had forgotten about it. Will definitely listen to it. Ep 1 is available until tomorrow afternoon, everyone!
Can I ask for some ground rules here? Well, just one at the moment! Whenever I've had discussions about religion on MN, I and other posters - both religious and not - have always been sorely disappointed by certain posters whose approach appears to be to fling arguments or accusations, and then when someone refutes those arguments conclusively, rather than admitting that they didn't know that or that perhaps they were wrong, the poster ignores the refutation and flings the next argument. This turns it into a tennis match and not a thoughtful discussion. I can see this thread going the same way.
I would really like to be able to have a thoughtful discussion about religion on MN, so how would you all feel about agreeing to not take the tennis match approach, but instead being open enough to accept that ideas which you had not considered may have some merit? I think if there's no willingness to do this I'll bow out because it will make the thread a waste of time IMO.