Talk:Thealogy

I don't see how the issues raised in the templates removed have been settled, so I've restored them. I also don't understand why For the common term, see Theology was removed. Jackiestud, you were asked not to remove the templates, yet you removed them again with no discussion. Why do you keep acting this way? The para above needs to be dealt with. Eg Monotheasm'? some reliable sources for the term? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

in obvious cases of long unreferenced essays, I suggest you should just remove the offending material rather than tag the article with half a dozen warnings :o) "thealogy" is already a tongue-in-cheek coinage of Bonewits', but "monotheasm" is just all-out dadaism, or should I say dadaasm. --dab (𒁳) 08:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have to delete the comparison with Sophia in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. For one thing, Sophiology does not carry the same weight, and for another it is not a mainstram Orthodox view - Bulgakov, its main proponent in the early 20th century, was asked to let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.200.1 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

this article discusses

• the history ofhte term itself
• feminist theology
• feminist theology within the goddess movement in particular.

I find it doubtful whether it should remain a standalone article. It could be merged into goddess movement or else split between feminist theology and goddess movement. I do not see any potential for development under this title. It will just remain a problem article indefinitely. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I recommend renaming to "Feminist spirituality" (see my previous comment above), and moving some material over to "Goddess movement"... AnonMoos (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the way, the French article "Théalogie" was removed on Feb. 24th because "Ce néologisme ne rassemble pas suffisamment de sources pour étayer un article encyclopédique"... AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think this should remain a standalone article. I was glad to see that Wikipedia's included an article on what many consider an extremely important topic. Thealogy is a relatively new but important term (and concept) that is used not infrequently now on the internet, and people need someplace to come to find good, accurate, and succinct information about it. If "theology" merits its own Wiki page, what might the reasoning be for pushing "thealogy" off into an obscure corner of another article where it won't be nearly as useful as it is where it is now?Athana (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's been in use since the 1970s, and some people haven't liked it as a word since the 1970s (though I probably encountered it first in the early 1980s, and couldn't swear as to whether I came across Thealogy or Anarcha-feminism first). The treatments of "Theology" and "Thealogy" on Wikipedia are not going to be parallel in terms of number and size of articles etc., since Theology is a correctly-formed word which is not gender specific (there's no contradiction in "Theology of a goddess") and which has been in use for thousands of years to refer to an accepted academic field -- differing in all those respects from Thealogy... AnonMoos (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Merging is proposed by a May, 2008, Merge template on the article and discussed on this talk page under split?. I oppose.

• It should not be merged into an article on any deity because theology can be polytheistic and thus so can thealogy.
• It should not be merged into an article on feminist spirituality since spirituality includes how one lives life in practical terms (e.g., how one might compromise with one's pure thealogy/theology) and not simply the theory intended behind how one lives.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with point #1, but disagree with point #2 -- that just means that a feminist spirituality article could cover points other than "thealogy". Two terms don't have to have exactly the same denotation for the Wikipedia articles on them to be merged... In any case the word "thealogy" still pretty much violates ancient Greek word compounding rules, and seems to lack scholarly respectability as compared to some of the alternatives (such as "feminist spirituality"). AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay; I've changed my mind on merging into an article titled feminist spirituality. Go ahead, when it's been written.

I had assumed a merger proposal implied the existence of the destination article. It turns out, however, that feminist spirituality is only redirecting, and so is feminist spirituality movement. So, if you want to write a more wide-ranging article and subsume thealogy within it, making it a nonredirect and thealogy a redirect, that makes sense.

On ancient grammar regulating modern usage: No, definitely no. The grammar police are wrong. Language must be, and is, a tool for communication and thus must fit prospectively-communicating users' needs, and not one ancient Greek is alive today. Were we bound to ancient language rules simply because they exist, then we should be bound to ancient cultural practices generally, absent any distinction as to why one set should bind and the other not. In that case, we should embrace slavery, since it was an ancient practice very much approved by the leaders, elites, and other users of proper language.

As to whether scholars respect the word, what matters is whether the word is in use, even as an alternative, and it is. Scholars and you and I are free to choose what words we'll use, and in doing so we're not limited to whether it has been endorsed by scholars. Their choices are sometimes a lagging indicator of acceptance.

Best wishes on writing the article. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nick Levinson -- If it were solely and exclusively a point of ancient Greek compounding conventions, then that might not be too relevant (the word "psychoanalysis" also violates ancient Greek compounding conventions, while "homophobia" is meaningless). However, some educated English speakers who aren't greatly knowledgeable in Greek can feel that there's something funny about it from their general sprachgefühl based on other English vocabulary, while apparently enough academics turn up their noses at it to prevent it from gaining much scholarly foothold beyond a very narrow niche... AnonMoos (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello everyone,

Shan, I have added to what you have written here and updated the entry with more recent contributions to the field. I hope you don't mind, but I have clarified or reworded a few sentences as I felt they were confusing and unclear as they were currently written. I have adjusted some of the language to fit the 'neutral' bent of Wikipedia, though I agree with Shan's point, that all knowledge is subjective.

I am hoping that this update post meets the standards set forth by Wikipedia and that these tags can be removed now. I am happpy to revise or update any of what I added and am open to critique on the topic. I tried my best to be as "neutral" as possible and will gladly add more or take out anything that seems questionable.

I feel I can write in this area because thealogy is my field of expertise. I teach thealogy at the university level, and in one of the few universities where such a course is even offered. Most universities do not offer courses in thealogy, but some courses will touch on it but under the broader discourse of feminist theology. Ocean Seminary college is I believe the first university to actually offer courses solely in the field of Goddess Thealogy and this is where I teach. I am also the founder and director of the Institute for Thealogy & Deasophy which just formed several months ago in an attempt to expand and legitimate the discourse of thealogy. So I have added some of the material directly from that site and I assure you that this material was all authored by me.

I look forward to your comments and feedback.

Angela Hope Theklabast (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again,

I forgot to add that I oppose the merger. Feminist spirituality refers to a broad phenomenon which encompasses beliefs, values, practices, modes of praxis and so on. Thealogy on the other hand is a distinctive discourse that focuses simply on the beliefs related to Goddess spirituality. It more accurately falls under the field of Religious Studies. It is not a subfield within feminist spirituality necessarily as not all spiritual feminists do thealogy....some do theology. The distinction is important to make. Some do feminist theology while others partake in feminist thealogy. I think too that thealogy is beginning to develop more and more into its own robust discourse, distinctive from theology rather than as as subfield within theology. More and more thealogians are publishing their work like myself, Patricia Iolana, Paul Reid Bowen, D'vorah Grenn, and Jill Hammer. Carol Christ will be publishing some more thealogical articles in a forthcoming book that I am editing called Thealogies of the Goddess: Dialogues within the Spiritual Feminist Community". So Goddess feminism is not waning but certainly waxing, and more and more scholars and practitioners are writing in the field of thealogy. Just my two cents. Hope this helps.

Angela Hope Theklabast (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

i think we r all part of God because of our souls, and that is insane to include God only within feminine or masculine sphere; GOD has no gender though lets not waste our precious time!!! So that means whoever physically, emotionally, and intellectually satisfied has GOD in her or him!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.74.158 (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am currently going through on a copy-edit as part of the March Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive drive. It really does seem though that part of this could be considered original research, or essay-like. Any thoughts? -Pax85 (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I tried what I could, and then placed a tag at the top of this page as a reminder to place the {{copyedit}} tag once the current issues have been looked over. Any questions, and please contact me! -Pax85 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

What does Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer have to do with Goddesses? Are they hoping to find some? Biscuittin (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oops. That should be a link to the Guild of Copy Editors. It is corrected now. Thank you. :) -Pax85 (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

See my previous comments above and at Talk:Thealogy/Archive_1#Inappropriate_past_merger_.28Feminist_spirituality.29... AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Could somebody who knows please add something explaining the etymology of the word: why does "theology" imply the study of a masculine God, but "thealogy" imply a female God or a feminist take on theology. Is it Greek? GrindtXX (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's kind of pseudo-Greek, since Classical-language compounding didn't really work that way. On the other hand, it doesn't violate the rules of Greek any more than "homophobia" also does...   -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I'm still confused. Is it that "theo" means god, but "thea" means goddess? And if so, can you add something to that effect to the article? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to know! GrindtXX (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

θεος was "god" and θεα was "goddess", but the -o- vowel in a word like θεολογια didn't have specifically-masculine reference, and the rules of classical Greek compounding don't really allow an -a- vowel to replace the -o- vowel in that position... AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

These are all great questions, and because this is a new emerging field, and it is very much it's own branch of thealogy, apart from feminist theology, I will try and help answer the questions inlcuded in this talk page. I will also try and add some of the missing citations. This may take a few days, so please be patient. All the best, LadyAthene (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)LadyAtheneReply

Dear All,

I am currently working on revising this entry per the difficulties mentioned here in the talk page. I have started with the opening paragraph, and I will revise them and mark them

as each section is complete. As I'm new to this process I hope you'll bear with me as I stumble through it. Any advice is greatly appreciated. My knowledge base comes from my doctoral research in literature, theology and the arts, co-founder of the Institute for Thealogy and Deasophy, and my place as one of the emerging contemporary thealogians.

Peace, LadyAthene (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)LadyAtheneReply

-- the full article has been revised. There is at least one citation that I could not document. All other citations have been sorted and an extensive Further Reading list provided. Peace LadyAthene (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)LadyAtheneReply

This article appears to be completely uninformative and is merely a collection of academic citations, and can probably be truncated accordingly. -- 18:09, 27 November 2012‎ User:Dkendr

The name was somewhat unfortunately chosen, and perhaps could be better filed under "Goddess movement" and/or "Feminist spirituality" (as discussed previously). However, it refers to actual currents of thought, and pertinent academic citations are the Wikipedia gold standard... AnonMoos (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

To address AnonMoos' point, though citations are the gold coin of the realm in Wikipedia, it is very badly spent here. I haven't the time or the psychosis required to check the cites but I suspect none of them have more than a sentence relevant to this article's subject. Dkendr (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree with Dkendr: the article as it stands is rambling, unencyclopedic and pretty incomprehensible (though improved by his/her edits). Yes, loads of references to authorities, and discussion of who may or may not have coined the term, but practically nothing on what thealogy is. I first came to this article because I had encountered the word as a term completely new to me, and wondered what it was all about: frankly, I'm still not a great deal the wiser. The impression I (and I'm sure others) have come away with is that thealogy is a woolly and ill-defined pseudo-discipline, and the province of a bunch of dim-witted lentil-eating feminist cranks. Just compare, for example, the lead to Theology:

Theology (from Ancient Greek Θεός meaning "God" and λόγος, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary.

– a concise encyclopedic definition, in a nutshell, plus the etymology. Something like that is what's wanted here. AnonMoos: you are clearly knowledgeable on this topic, care enough about it to have it on your watchlist, and have made several informed and measured comments on this talk page; and yet you appear never to have made a single edit to the article. Can't you please give it an overhaul? GrindtXX (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

GrindtXX -- My "qualifications" in this area mainly consist of having read some diverse miscellaneous materials in the 1980s and early 1990s... I would like to see this area receive good coverage on Wikipedia, but I don't really feel qualified or motivated to do major restructuring on articles such as this one, and actually I've disliked the term "Thealogy" ever since the 1980s anyway (I would prefer that most of the content be moved to an article titled "Feminist spirituality", which is the main reason I have this article on my watchlist). If you want to see the more academic side of things (which "Thealogy" under that name mostly isn't), look at Feminist theology... -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't think lack of qualifications has ever been a bar to editing Wikipedia ... but I take your point, and of course it's entirely up to you. I may attempt a bit of basic housekeeping on it myself. GrindtXX (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I'm going to work on making this article more encyclopedic, starting by moving a lot of the definitions of thealogy to the citations section of the wiktionary entry for thealogy. I've also checked out a bunch of books on thealogy and feminist theology, so I should be able to add more details and citations shortly. I'm being bold, so if there are any objections please say so here. Otherwise, feel free to chip in! Phoenixred (talk)

Ok, I've worked on the article for several days, and I think it looks more like an encyclopedia article, with (somewhat exhaustive) references and quotes to validate those references. I welcome any additions or copy-editing that others can provide -- I don't want my natural bias to unduly influence the article. Thanks! Phoenixred (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi again folks! Since none of the points in the Interpretations section of the article were sourced in-line, I'm moving them here to the talk page until I can look up the citations to back up these claims. I'll reincorporate them as I'm able, but of course everyone else can be bold, too!

• Bonewits, by implication, sees thealogy as the Goddess-focused variant of a thealogy/polytheology cluster viewable as subsets of the broader field of the philosophy of religion.
• Christ and Reid-Bowen focus thealogy specifically on post-Christian Goddess-spirituality and as a discourse systematically conceivable with specific thealogical methods.
• Caron defines a broader field of a female worldview of the sacred that also incorporates non-feminist approaches to thealogy.
• Raphael focuses on thealogy as an embodied discourse that may or may not be approached systematically; she situates thealogy closely with the views and beliefs held by Goddess feminists.
• Goldenberg's neologism as a political stance that marks the androcentrism of historical theology that summons her reader to think about the possibilities of a post-patriarchal discourse about the Divine.^{[clarification needed]}
• Hope's rendering situates thealogy as rooted in feminist epistemology and ontology. Similar to Raphael, she locates thealogy as a discourse involving more than just Neopagans, and including those who have not left their established religion.
• 'Iolana focuses on depth thealogy, which combines the depth psychology of Carl G. Jung with thealogy to provide a psychodynamic understanding of personal thealogical religious experience and praxis.

Thealogy is referred to^{[by whom?]} as its own unique discourse separate from theology, rather than a sub-field within theology. In line with Christ and Reid-Bowen, thealogy can be conceived of in a systematic fashion with specific methods, while deasophy (a concept coined by Max Dashu) which addresses the wisdom of the Goddess tradition, may not necessarily be systematically ordered.

Thanks! Phoenixred (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi y'all, I don't know too much about this topic, but when I searched Wikipedia for "sacred feminine," I was redirected to Goddess. Under the "Sacred Feminine" contents on the Goddess page, it redirects us here as the main article. Would it be more reasonable to have sacred feminine redirect here rather than Goddess?

Sarawebber233 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply