Talk:Thealogy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Templates, recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: split?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 2014

message: 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)
thread_title:  I have updated the posting on thealogy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Oppose the Merger 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Copy-edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revisions and Corrections Beginning 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Migrating definitions to Wiktionary & working on encyclopedia-ifying 

message: 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.
* 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 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced "Interpretations" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Sacred Feminine" redirect?