// And no apostles (that we even know of) were women //
If you define apostle as a believer who was an eye witness to Jesus' life, ministry and death, then you have to include Mary Magdalene.
Jesus had many women devoted to Him and who are spoken of very highly in the gospels and letters. You do them a grave dis-service writing them off as being dipicted as insignificant, devious, evil creatures.
It was a woman, loved and greatly valued, who was the first resurrected by the power of the Holy Ghost working through Peter. Book of Acts, chapter 9 I think.
Christ Himself often made it clear how valued they were.
God is referred to with a masculine pronoun all threw out the Biblical text - so I accept that somehow, for some reason that I don't really understand, it is correct. It has never bothered me a bit. I am one strongly opposed to the re-writing of the text in neutral terms, or adding the female pronoun next to the masculine. That is a perversion of the text, and so a false teaching. If a person wants to redefine the nature of God, they need to admit they are not Judaic - Christians, and go on and join the wiccans in the woods.
// Why didnt god choose to have a dughter? Becuase can you imagine a society so hateful and demeaning towards women following a WOMAN diety? //
You are grossly mischaracterizing the nature of Judaic patriarchy. I feel society today is far more hateful and demeaning to women than it was in Biblical times. Yes, they had the subservient role in society; and by today's standards it is viewed as intolerably sexist - but remember that was then, and this is now. Women did in fact need more protection then, and this was provided by the patriarchal nature of society. This has been so in every society threw out the ages - up until the advent of widely available birth control. When it comes to evaluating the relative worth of the female sex in these societies, the Judaic version was the most liberal in recognizing the worth of a woman and in allowing them some personal rights under the law.
I think your quite right that a female Christ would not have been acceptable. Common sense seems to say so. But how is this so offensive to you that you would discount the salvation message as a result? That, to me, defies common sense.
// So I do know some Christians who arent assholes. However, I know Hindus who are great as well, and Buddists, and athiests, and.... //
Sure hon, I know. I know them too. But weather someone is an ass hole, or not, is not the deciding factor. And those Hindus? Some of them still throw women on the funeral pyre to burn alive with their dead husbands.
