GameBanshee Forums

Warggoath wrote:Is this the thread I started? I am bit confused, same title, no starting message, 7 pages in something like 5 secs...

No, your thread got merged into the thread that I started months ago as it was based on the same topic. Multiple threads on the same topic are prohibited, so *poof* a moderator fixed it and included the new posts on yours rather than deleting them.

fable wrote:I recall reading once a folktale about 6 blind men who argued incessantly about what an elephant was like, after each felt something different on it (a tusk, an ear, a side, etc). We're like that.

I don't know whether you read the Indian folktale or the poem based on it by by American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887), but here's the poem:


The Blind Men and the Elephant

It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the elephant,
Though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! But the elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried: "Ho! What have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis very clear,
This wonder of an elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is might plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant
Is very like a tree."

The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most:
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an elephant
Is very like a fan."

The sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the elephant
Is very like a rope."

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong.
Though each was partly right,
All were in the wrong.

Nice; thanks for pointing that out. I'd never read it as a poem, before. My source was a book of Indian folktales. I've adapted it in the past, as well, to serve my purposes in a short story.

That lack of tangible proof really makes discussion highly difficult, as I have found most people discount anything that cannot be sensed with their 5 base senses as unreal, delusion or a product of the imagination.

I can understand this in a sense easier, Mags, than those who, lacking any proof of non-sensory claims, insist upon the Absolute Truth of their beliefs, and the need for all others to acknowledge them, as well. (And this is just as true of many pagan religions I know, as of monotheistic ones.) You'd think that the fact none of this has any objective (ie, 5 sense) reality would lead to a degree of relativism, wouldn't you? An awareness that there may be much knowledge beyond our ken? But no; what can't be seen either cannot exist, or it is set in concrete. Each to their own, I guess.

fable wrote: I allow for a multiplicity of beings at all sorts of levels, created for what purpose I've no idea; and I realize I have no evidence to offer for my beliefs, and frankly, don't care. We're all too ignorant upon this subject to really discuss it, anyway. I recall reading once a folktale about 6 blind men who argued incessantly about what an elephant was like, after each felt something different on it (a tusk, an ear, a side, etc). We're like that.

End of mini-rant.

Hey, would you like to join us? :laugh: Honestly, I said pretty much the same on a conference not long ago...
And well, social-political-historical dogma should not be mixed with religion, I think. Goodnight!

Do you know what the elephants said, "hey I discovered what man is like. They are flat <after trampling them haha>".

Buddhism is an example of a religion that is not absolutist but neither is it like western relativism. In buddhism there are two levels of truth the conventional world we see to everyday appearances and the ultimate level. Different schools of buddhism use words to point to these two truths in different ways.

At the conventional level of reality there is something called dependent origination that says all (conditional) things are impermanent, composed of parts, and merely labeled. That is linked to emptiness which asserts that things are empty of an inherent self or essence. In other words they must interbe with other things and not exist themselves.

The Buddha's Doctrine of Relativity


Buddha's teaching of Dependent Origination and Emptiness is often referred to as 'The Central Philosophy of Tibet' or 'Buddha's Teaching of Relativity.'

Because of the similarity of terms, and the sometimes frequent use of the term 'relativism to describe the Buddha's intent, the criticisms of Western Relativism are often levied wrongly against Buddhism.

Buddhism's Relativity is based on the Buddha's Middle Path between the two extremes of Nihilism and Eternalism, along with the Descriptions of the Twelve Dependent Links, Dependent Origination and Emptiness, All in the Context of the Two Truths.

The major difference between Western Relativism and Buddhist Relativity is that - due to the Non-dual and Non-absolutist structure of the Two Truths - we can study BOTH a Relative System which includes Moral and Ethical Guidance at the same time as providing a Rigorous - and even a Skeptical - Philosophy.

Buddhism has better success with both Ethics and Skepticism because it is a Non-absolutist System of Thought and Practice. In the West, we are taught over and over that only One Can be the Best, only One can be true - and in the TV Series 'The Highlander,' that "There can be only ONE."

The problem with Absolutism is that - because the world is more complex than any 'One View,' Absolutism seems to breed paradox at the same time it is evoked. Buddhism takes an honest approach to some questions and says that we just can't answer those questions at this time. Such questions are 'those which are set aside' or the Imponderables (Avyaakata). The Avyaakata are:

1. Whether the world is eternal
2. or not eternal
3. Whether the world is finite
4. or infinite
5. Whether the soul and body are identical
6. or different
7. Whether the enlightened one exists after death,
8. or does not exist after death,
9. or both exists and does not exist after death,
10. or neither exists nor does not exist after death

Modern Science has given us good data on numbers 1 thru 4. The others are still problematic.

With all of this in mind, we can turn to a General Overview of Philosophy in Buddhism. In the Practice-oriented Traditions, such teachings are often contained in the Teaching of the Four Schools. The major text we will use has a different purpose so we will reserve The Teachings of the Four Schools for another time.

The link to the website was not working...the above quote is from my e-mail from the site.

QuenGalad wrote:Hey, would you like to join us? :laugh: Honestly, I said pretty much the same on a conference not long ago...
And well, social-political-historical dogma should not be mixed with religion, I think.

Can't speak to what pagans are like in Poland, but here in the US they are frequently gullible young women "seeking" one-stop illumination and power. Many of them believe in a female deity who made everything, and that every female deity ever worshipped can be subsumed in one, without trying to grasp how completely unlike any two gods and their rituals are from one another. They think reading a book (or two, if they're adventurous) grants automatic access to spirituality and magic, that all pagans worship the earth (actually, pagans of old were just as much into pollution as anybody else), and that it's wrong to voice a criticism of any other pagan. Everybody gets instant powers. It is as far away from spirituality as teen romance novels are from life.

But maybe this isn't the case where you are. I was under the impression Poland was not exactly a religiously tolerant culture, being very conservatively Roman Catholic and having a large proportion of people who view other religions with suspicion. Am I wrong in this? Regardless, good luck.

QuenGalad wrote:But perhaps you people see some things differently, because you accept the right of others to be whatever religion they want. In my country, It's a constant 'fight', to try and live according to my beliefs, and I mean beliefs, with such a huge pression from Polish outside. One of fundaments of my whole being is that religion is a private business of people concerned, but my country thinks it otherwise. It's a normal oppinion here that you cannot be Polish if you're not catholic. It's a kind of equation, Pole=catholic, pretty much like dwarf=miner In such a situation, there's no question of "touching the world". It's more like trying to stop the world from touching you, and it's not by any means escaping from reality. It's more like trying to make some reality that would not escape from you.

I find that incredibly ironic considering that there was a point in time where you could not be German if you were Jewish. I never understood such traditions or official practices outside of that kind of intentional segregation. One might try pointing such a parallel out to Poles who think that way, but that'll likely just piss them off.

I just find it to be increasingly difficult to be anything other than a Christian in the U.S. For a country that is supposed to allow freedom of religion, you can't swing a dead cat without smacking ten Christians. And virtually the entire country shuts down on Christmas, yet who is closed during Ramadan or Hanukkah (I am sure I spelled that wrong, I've seen so many variant spellings that I just don't know anymore)? When I worked at Godiva, the store catered almost entirely to Christmas: we had a dozen different Christmas-related products and only three or four for Hanukkah (this doesn't count the gold box sets with the Christmas or Hanukkah ribbon, by the way). And you know there wasn't any chocolate sets made for Kwanza or Ramadan or any other holiday at that time of year (I was once told that our store, seeing how it's in a largely-Jewish city, had a larger amount of Hanukkah stuff). And just walking down the main hallway at my university, you see off to the side a room specifically for Catholics, but nowhere on campus is there a designated spot for any other specific religion. And also, when you walk down that same hallway, you may be bombarded by various different Christian groups pandering the good word, and only rarely do you see another religious group and they are usually relegated to one table (whereas last week, with the approach of Easter, we had three separate groups of Christians spread throughout the hall passing out mini-Bibles and it was impossible to get past them without at least two Bibles being shoved in your face). And I know I've mentioned this before, but I live in a predominantly Jewish city, and yet several times a month someone pays a skywriter to say "Jesus loves you" in the sky. It's practically shoved down your throat so much that it's reminiscent of the old addage that there is freedom for all, but some are more free than others.

Still hardcore atheist, although lately I've been considering the idea that Earth is little more than the galaxy's insane asylum, and we're all basically patients in one huge looney bin (some famous author actually stated this before, now that I think about it). Makes as much sense as any other belief, IMO. My mother seems to be approaching a sort of paganistic lifestyle similar to the one fable just came down on. I don't know if she's really a true believer or not or if she's just into some of the stuff inherent in that form of "paganism," though (although I have theories on why she is this way, and it stems from my father's passive-aggressive mode of control).

@Fable, a very good impression. Both of them.

Actually, nature religions in Poland are enclosed in a sort of triangle, where from one side you must hide from roman-catholic-frenzied authorities and people, from the other you must avoid all the ultra-nationalists who tend to distort the little that is known about old slavic religion to their nazi goals. From the third side, we must hide from what you described so neatly.

But have you ever considered, what have other religions to offer for women? I understand those poor nitwits you speak about. Catholics think a woman must be a virgin bearing dozens of children and showing the other cheek when raped and beaten. Islam - no comments. Buddhism just does not notice women, while it permits a man to walk out of home for a sacred pelerinage and never come back once the children are grown up. Judaism separates us from men as if we were... I don't know. Dirty. Or something.

Religion is for men and only for men, as everything. So no wonder some girls desperately try to find any other way.

QuenGalad wrote:But have you ever considered, what have other religions to offer for women? I understand those poor nitwits you speak about. Catholics think a woman must be a virgin bearing dozens of children and showing the other cheek when raped and beaten. Islam - no comments. Buddhism just does not notice women, while it permits a man to walk out of home for a sacred pelerinage and never come back once the children are grown up. Judaism separates us from men as if we were... I don't know. Dirty. Or something.

Religion is for men and only for men, as everything. So no wonder some girls desperately try to find any other way.

Most Protestant faiths now support the ordination and elevation into the religious hierarchy of women. Some Buddhist branches do as much; Reformed Judaism, too. With Hinduism, it has always depended upon the deity and their preferred mode of worship. I've personally known 1 female rabbi, and an Anglican and Baptist minister. My small library includes a very good work by a modern Buddhist abbess.

But this doesn't deal with the issue of inherent gender discrimination within a given religion, does it? It seems to me that the problem with the female monotheists and polytheists of paganism is that instead of rectifying cultural gender errors introduced into such religions as Christianity, Judaism and Islam--creating a level playing field, recognizing that any overall creative spirit is certainly beyond form, and in fact beyond conception--they just reverse the prejudice. Women are preferred, the deity becomes a goddess because only women can create (one of the silliest things I've ever heard ), and males are "allowed" to worship her. Or not. Some branches of pagan feminist monotheism don't even allow men.

These religions are even more of a problem than their older male-based counterparts. Because with the latter, a woman can know what's wrong, can see it in writing, can recognize it in the hierarchy of the organization. But in the female-based versions, there's a belief among the congregants that they've solved problems, when all they've done is put on a set of blinders they didn't wear, before. Put another way: they've moved from a box they knew was a box, into a box they think is the entire universe. Puer: loss for the home team.

Gender-neutral religions are not automatically guaranteed a one-way loop-free ride to the Deity-O-Rama, but they've got a least one very nasty kink out of the dogmatic framework from the start which bedevils others. Just my POV.

Honestly, I said pretty much the same on a conference not long ago...
And well, social-political-historical dogma should not be mixed with religion, I think.

Complete agreement. But in the US (I can't speak to how it is for you), pagans walk in lockstep on a whole range of issues, unwilling or afraid to speak out. Claim that pagans aren't united, and that the belief structures of many groups are actually in major opposition to others among them? Watch out! Point out that there was no "time of burning" with millions of pagan women being burnt at stakes, but actually 20,000-40,000 Christian and Jewish men and women who were burnt? Instant anger against the assembled facts. There's no reason a witch such as myself should follow a Celtic calendar of celebrations used by agricultural communities in and around Ireland 1500 years ago; but again, this is something that's set in the minds of USian pagans.

Ah, but enough. You get the picture. Dogma everywhere, none more so than among those who believe themselves free of it.

Quengalad,

I hope the unequity in buddhism between the sexes will improve. Some nuns raised the issue of womens equality to the da lai lama. They asked that everyone close there eyes and imagine that all the monks in authority were women. They asked to imagine that all the buddhas and artwork depicted a female enlightened buddha. They also asked the men to go and make tea while the women conducted the service. The da lai lama was moved. I think it even brought tears to his eyes. He said he would make an effort to change that. And I believe him, as telling the truth is a virtue in buddhism. I imagine change will happen but not sure how fast.

Some of the observed problem is due to the nuns of most of the traditions being butchered at one time by invaders. Because there were no fully ordained nuns no new ones could be brought up. This is why there are few prominent nuns. Which is not to say that the novice nuns are 'lesser', but they lost the lineage of fully ordained nuns. It has never been explained to me to my satisfaction why fully ordained monks can't teach the nuns??

My teacher is a women. You don't have to have been a nun to become a lama. There are female meditational bodhisattvas. Tara is the female aspect of buddha. My contact person is a women and a lot of the people working for the sangha are women. A good teacher has two qualities: they want to help people and they are able to help people. A woman or a man can have those qualities. The next buddha to turn the wheel of dharma Maitreya (5th of 1001) will become a buddha solely by the practice of loving kindness. Could be a woman? The men in buddhism believe that they have had numerous previous births as women and vice versa.

Also I will add that in buddhism there are all types of people. Some of them are nice. Some angry. Some sexist. Some homophobic. What I have noticed 'a generalization' is that buddhists who are say homophobic view that as their own problem (a mental obscuration and emotional dissonance) rather than holding a rigid view that homosexuals are bad.

Which brings the question home to me. What can I do about it? I think I can only work on my own heart ie if sexes are equal in my heart I will act that way in real life.

The only reason we don't open our hearts and minds to other people is that they trigger confusion in us that we don't feel brave enough or sane enough to deal with. To the degree that we look clearly and compassionately at ourselves, we feel confident and fearless about looking into someone else's eyes.

Pema Chodron - fully ordained nun

As far as creation:

form is emptiness and emptiness is form - heart sutra

a provisional (needs your interpretation ie not definitive) of emptiness is interconnected interbeing...has no separate essence

Edit: I'd also like to add that Siddhartha was a prince and his wife and son were taken care of while he was away. When he was returned he taught the dharma to each of them. His wife became an arhat meaning she removed ignorance, anger, and greed.

A very interesting discussion.

I am pretty much a Theravada Buddist, only I don't believe there is any reincarnation, not a solid requirement anyway.

I used to be a comitted atheist but I have strong spiritual tendancies. Theravada Buddism doesn't require that you believe in God. - Curdis !

You know, for I-don't-know-which-time the SYMers have demonstrated their intellectually-soothing abilities... I like when that happens.

Claudius, thank you for your very enlightening post. It makes me understand more about buddhism, which I know to little. Maybe I shouldn't have spoken, when my information was, and still is, insufficient.

And Fable, I wonder if you are ever going to post something stupid? :laugh:

Well, I said I would speak more of mah beliefs here sometime and now it is a time. First of all, I am 16 yes, you can think and surpass these just as ramblings of a angst stupid teenager but this is what I think:

For what I mean with Lucifer, not as higher being to be worshipped but merely as paragon. And with paragon I mean nothing like jesus but a man with more knowledge and strenght than mere human. You shalt know that I am not very strong if you measure how hard you can punch but by mind. You can be strong and punch and kill every one in world how much you like but that wouldnt be wise, right? But if you can control mind you can correctly do what I descripet before. I mean that there are sometimes need to be violent, to survive. See, as we eat meat, there has to be violence to get that meat out of cattles, we dont just wait when their hearts stop or bodies collapse, right? As is destroying forest s for fields, houses and stuff. We need to destroy lifes and nature in order to live in modern world. Also I see the humans as mere parts of a machine just to live and die in a one nation or another as merely 80% just of humans doesnt make differnece economicaly, culturaly, philosophicaly. This doesnt mean that I didnt care about those people wo are close to me, I do, I dont really want any harm to them. Actually there is one guy who I can really call as my best friend and I hope especially that he has a good life and is to live with me...In order to live full life we need other people as in complete isolation the walls will close on you and you will soon release being in same ausulym as in one flew over the cuckoos nest. I am a man and I have made a decision not to cry but that has been flawed I think once after making that promise to myself(it feels pretty bad when your knee twists of its place into left side of your leg) but this doesnt mean that I dont have bad days, depression or other normal feelings. I may seem cold outside when you see me walking down the street in mah darkthrone rock army jacket but those who know me know that I am different person and not as cold as stone and not (at least very) homicidal. I think that although I try to control my mind with anger, hatred, embaramessed that you shouldnt give up those fun things in your life, as that is being human. That is what my paragon stands for...

And yes, badly and crudely explained but after few reads you get hang of it...

@ Warggoath: In that case, your views don't have anything at all to do with Lucifer, in any way, shape or form. You have your own personal outlook on life, leave it at that.

[QUOTE=QuenGalad]Religion is for men and only for men, as everything. So no wonder some girls desperately try to find any other way.[/QUOTE]

Not true. Common, world recognized, and organized religions fit that way. Mine certainly does not. If anything, my personal belief system favors women over men, which would technically make me a sexist against my own sex. Never really thought of it that way before, but I have to say, I am far more disappointed with the males I encounter than the females in general.

Unfortunately, I believe that society has been caught in some weird catch 22 with how to deal with male/female relationships. Historically, in general, males were seen as superior, even if only by themselves. Women became submissive, passive aggressive, and/or used deceitful techniques in order to attempt to restore the power balance. The religions which were in place had mandates stating certain things were sinful or bad, and in order to seek ways to tip the scales in their favor, women often did things that the religion found sinful in order to accomplish what they needed to do. That probably didn't help the women in their struggle for equality later on, giving the men in power who wanted to stay in power ammunition to use against the women. Whether it was justified or not.

For example, it is unfortunately still common for women to use their appearance and bodies in order to get what they want from men. Dressing in revealing clothes to get free drinks, exchanging sex in a relationship in order to get jewelry or clothing, etc. I won't tolerate such behavior from girls, but is it really their fault? They are often trained, either by a family member, or train themselves noting that they can get further in life by doing as they see someone else to do. The reason this is done is that in previous generations, thats how things were. It is not right, but like racism, and slavery, it was how things were in the past. Woman A does X for Man B in exchange for Y. Man B does C for Woman A in exchange for Z. A relationship barter system if you will, in which the sexes use subtle ways to shift the power balance without ever mentioning it to each other.

Feminism has turned ugly, as a belief system put into practice, like communism and capitalism. The few who do wrong in order to get what they want within the group who follow it ruin it for the others amongst the group. Just like if you look at the original message that was set down for Christianity in history, and then look at what was transcribed into the bible, it is different. It's like a game of telephone, where the original message is twisted, and therefore, laughed at or looked down upon.

One of the reasons I keep my beliefs as just my beliefs. I don't spread them, as in spreading them, I will see my belief system twisted into the vision of someone else. This would frustrate me, as they would most likely claim to still follow my belief system. I would inform them they are not, and they would say "Yes, I am, you taught it to me." refusing to see they have changed it ever slightly. Perhaps they would alter it still further as they grew older, then pass it on to their children. One might choose to follow it, and change it again himself. Which, in all actually, is nothing like my belief system at all.

Which leads to frustration when discussing it with others. Many seem to need some form of tangible proof. They need a name for the religion, a historical backing, prominent figures, text, symbols, etc. I could title my religion and write a book, and create a symbol for my religion. I could even press the government to acknowledge it as a "true" religion. Go to court to get my personal holidays as legal holidays which I could get off work. I would probably fail, as this country is run by Christians, regardless of the basis of the countries ideals. Which is a hypocrisy of incredible proportions, but that happens to be something else entirely.

As it is, if I told my boss "I want a day off for holiday 'X'" she would laugh and say "Oh, you just made that up. I've never heard of it." She would probably give me the day off, as she adores me, however it would be of the utmost disrespect to my belief system in the way she responded. My refusal to participate in the standardized holidays recognized by this country...generally ancient holidays twisted into a marketing device by Christians in general anyhow sets me apart. I am seen as anti-social and a heathen for discounting Easter and Christmas and the like. Yet, if I wanted to celebrate a day that was truly, thoroughly special to me, I would be just making up something in order to slack off. Unlike the folks who just want to get drunk and sleep in on any other given holiday in this country.

If you do a study of the major religions still followed by vast numbers of people in this world, you will note that they all contain the same basic concepts. They just take them in different directions. It's like a cube with different colored and textured faces. Every side is the same size and dimensions, but it looks slightly different. Humans in general aren't very good at accepting what is not readily able to be grasped at hand, so they stick to what is familiar and in sight. They only slowly absorb new concepts in large numbers if it doesn't have any tangible traits. The great differences between humans and say cats or flies do set humans apart, but not so much as humans seem to believe. Which, is and of itself another belief system, with its inherent flaws, biases and everything that is beholden to the standard belief system. THE original belief system if you will, one which is the basis of the others that humans hold dear.

Warrgoth, you can eat vegetables. And as far as destroying nature we can do it in a thoughtful way without waste. Population control might even be a good idea in this age.

Generally speaking there are 3 reasons we do something wrong: we want something, we want to hurt something, or it is a habit.

All 3 of those impulses are empty of any essence and in fact they depend on ignorance for there existence. The kind of ignorance that tells you that you are a separate self existent being that is unaffected by an animals death for example.

Because these 3 impulses are empty of any essence they are not permanent. Once you remove them your life is pretty much bliss in some sense. At least you are able to transform arrows into flowers with your mind.

Claudius wrote:Population control might even be a good idea in this age.

Population control would have been a good idea 300-600 years ago. You know, when all of those nasty plagues hit civilizations due to overpopulation in various areas of the world. Now? It won't work. Depopulation is what would be the step needed to be taken. Population control would only have been effective if the population wasn't a risk to everything else living on the planet at the time. It is now, not 100 years in the future.

China has had population control in effect for quite some time. I believe the law is to only allow 1 child per coupled pair. Which, should logically cut the population down, right? However, the fact is, people are afraid to die and want to live. Scientists have made fortunes on ways to extend human lifespans. If the death rate doesn't start to exceed the birth rate, even with a low birth rate for the next 20 years won't make much short term difference. People are now living for 3-5 generations worth of time. Even if a person only has one child, each person is then draining world resources for 60-100 years. Rather than the 20-40 years which was common 1000 years ago. Which also entailed a high rate of death during childbirth for both the mother and the child, and low rate of survival to adulthood.

Population control at this point is like a man who is so overweight he cannot get up out of bed deciding he wants to go on a diet. A diet which includes cutting out one sprinkle out of the hundred normally on his half gallon hot fudge sundae. Yes, it is change, but realistically, he will die before he notices any effect from it. If one out of every two humans up and died, today, right now, and then population control was set into effect like the Chinese have been trying to perfect for some time, it might have a chance of working. However, short of a super virus, war, or natural disaster of epic proportions, that is ridiculously laughable due to the sheer number of humans living at this moment.

No spam, please. As the thread title says. Thanks.

I don't think depopulation would be a good idea because nobody would want to be on the receiving end of it.

Well, I explained it a bit crudely, here is shorter and better version: Instead of worshipping Satan as a figure of Darkness, you worship Lucifer as a figure of liberation, illumination and wisdom. You are generally kind and caring, but you do have a darker side that rears up from time to time.

that actually is about me and it is from a quiz. Scary...

Um... How does that come into "you can not woship anyone because you're too great for that"? I'm afraid there's some contradictions around your subject, Warggoath.

@Magrus, I don't want to sound too intolerant or something, but... well...
When I say "religion is only for men" you say "mine isn't". But further, you state that your religion is not going to spread, because you don't want it to, you want it to stay your personal thing. That's very wise IMO.
But it still makes your religion restricted for men only, or even one man - you. So that's not a counter-argument for what I said. I belive you belive something I would see as wise, if I ever saw it. But I'm not going to see it, and no other woman will. So, all accessible by women religions still tend to be misogynic. BTW, the protestants allow women priests, but only on the lowest level.