|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The sacred feminine
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
You all obviously have never heard of the goddess "Asherah" her poles kept littering the Temple.
More obviously than truly.
Asherah was a goddess in Israel, if at all, before the Babylonian exile about 600 years BC.
That's 900 years before the time of Constantine. Blaming the Constantinian Church for the suppression of Canaanite goddess worship is, chronologically, like blaming George Bush for the crusades.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
it may be a tangent, but I dissagree with this:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Agrarian societies, by and large, are sexist because the death rate is so high. Women, generally speaking, are primarily there to produce the next generation's labour force. It is only with the transition to industrialisation that womens equality becomes a real possibility, as the decline in infant mortality permits a corresponding decline in the birth rate.
I'm not sure what you mean by agrarian, you mean agricultural? I can't speak to that. BUT, I think claiming that a high death rate itself lowers the status of woman to that of baby-making machine is faulty logic.
Until a hundred years ago, this part of the world was mostly what the anthros call "hunter-gatherer". And we still have a high mortality rate, and a low average age of death. actually - we still have a pretty hunter-gatherer based society rurally.
But women were not either made the subject of men or objectified by men until the christian missionaries came in and said it was god's plan for a women to serve her man. it's a fairly new concept. and, IMHO, part of what is causing such a painful, dysfuncitonal culture clash in the Native communities here. but I digress.
traditionally, the indian cultures here were matriarchal and matrilineal. (the eskimo cultures were neither - really very egalitarian) the reasoning for this, AFAIK, is because the women have the babies, raise the babies, feed the babies, gather the wood, build the home (which travels seasonally), etc. the men hunt and fish. they are away. they have very little to do with running the village in general or educating the youth. and if they get abusive, they can be cast out and sent back to their home clan.
women who have to produce more babies I dont think loose status, they gain. have you ever met the grandma who has had 12 kids? she's usually a roaring force of nature. And it's those grandmas that run our rural communities, in fact if not on paper.
Comet
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
At the end of the Roman Empire women had unrivalled legal rights & power; to divorce, the power to contract, make wills, sue in court, inherit.. we had to be 'emancipated' in the 20th C. to even become par.
At "the end of the Roman Empire" (and I assume you mean the western Empire here), the empire was Christian, though...
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PerkyEars
slightly distracted
# 9577
|
Posted
quote:
You all obviously have never heard of the goddess "Asherah" her poles kept littering the Temple.
I don't know about "never heared of". Anyone who's spent some time casually reading the Old Testament knows about Asherah, that fact that at times her worship eclipsed YHWH, and that there were violent tensions between the followers of those and other gods in Israel. Its not exactly supressed knowledge.
And I asked this before slightly jokingly, but now I'm asking seriously - would *you* be willing to take part in public sex as part of a religious rite? Would you personally feel comfortable with that?
Posts: 532 | From: Bristol | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Comet Chaser,
Hunter-gatherer societies are not agrarian. Agrarian societies have fixed settlements and grow crops in a more labour-intensive economy that supports a much larger population than hunter-gathering. Producing a lot of children can be very bad news for hunter-gatherers who must cover large distances, and whose life-style cannot support a dense population, but it is essential for a non-nomadic, labour-intensive economy based on grain or rice etc. Historically, the status of women has tended to fall when societies shift from nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles to agrarian societies, that's what Steve is talking about, if I remember my Social Anthropology properly.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
1. SteveTom: the online Jewish encyc. is eclisped by William. S Dever distinguished Biblical Archeologist.
"Did God have a Wife?" is considered a 1st rate book, even more so is Prof Mark S. Smith's "The Polytheistic Origins of Biblical Monotheism" This is the most admired book in the field. Groundbreaking, the Jewish El was part of the worship of Ugarit.
And yes, this all has an effect on Christian notions, J. Teixidor's "The Pagan God" another scholarly classic, traces how conservative Middle Easter religions were, hardly changing, in the worship of Atargatis, some ascetics would sit on pillars, some would sit in the dust beating their breast, asking for forgivness. Sound familiar? It's all to be found in Lucian's "On the Syrian Goddess"
As for works like the Oxford, I think it is great to recommend it. More people will read that than the tomes I post here, so it is no tangent! Thanks.
The Roman Empire, was polytheistic. If we agree with your thinking we should call Byzantium The Roman empire & nobody does.
As for sacred sex in public. Well if everyone treated me as a goddess & not a whore for doing so I would!
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep:
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Neither is "mediator between God and man", despite what some Catholics believe - that Mediator is Jesus and none other.
Jesus may be the Mediator between God and Man, but in some cases Mary is presented as the Mediator between Man and Jesus. Several friends of mine are going through the Total Consecration to Jesus through Mary by St. Louis de Montfort, so I've been hearing a lot of this thrown about lately. I'm no theologian, so don't ask me about the fine details.
The actual position is set out in paragraphs 8 and 60 of Lumen Gentium.
Christ is the sole Mediator between God and man. Mary however has an especial care for the Church and for humanity. But it entirely derives from Christ's position as sole Mediator before God. Mary's is a position of great dignity and veneration in the Catholic Church, as is explained at paragraphs 60 to 69 of Lumen Gentium. She is Advocate, Intercessor and, in the sense I referred to above, a subordinate Mediator - in the sense of drawing the faithful closer to Christ.
Lumen Gentium states a firm warning against role building for Mary, while preserving her dignity and veneration - I'm thinking particularly of the Co-Redemptorix movement, which was scotched by that great Marian, John Paul II.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cusanus
Ship's Schoolmaster
# 692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
The Roman Empire, was polytheistic. If we agree with your thinking we should call Byzantium The Roman empire & nobody does.
This seems to ignore the persistence of the western empire from Constantine to Romulus Augustulus, but OK, I'll accept your terminology.
What, then, was the specific nature of the legal shift in the status of women upon the 'conversion' of the empire from (official) paganism to (official) Christianity?
--------------------
"You are qualified," sa fotherington-tomas, "becos you can frankly never pass an exam and have 0 branes. Obviously you will be a skoolmaster - there is no other choice."
Posts: 3120 | From: The Peninsula | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
If we agree with your thinking we should call Byzantium The Roman empire & nobody does.
Nobody? Certainly a lot of people in the middle east do, from my reading. "Byzantine Empire" was a 19th century fabrication and is as unhistorical as a 19th century fabrication can get. NOBODY EVER called it that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
Originally posted by Steve Tom: [My bold] quote:
The Church elevated Mary to the role of a virtual goddess, the mother of God, the bearer of Christ, mediator between God and man, an object of prayer and worship, the Queen of Heaven.
There is nothing remotely like that in Judaism, in the New Testament, in Islam or Protestantism.
Actually, there is a tradition within Judaism that expresses the feminine as part of a prime duality that originates within [and from] the Godhead as First Principle of Consciousness. The feminine is expressed as the 'capacity to take form' and the masculine as 'raw energy'. Implying that the interaction of these two manifest themselves as matter or the physical world. That matter and consciousness are the same stuff and differ only in the degree that form (feminine) is imposed upon energy (masculine).
--------------------
--Formerly: Gort--
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Echoing what Duo said, certainly there is a tradition of the feminine in Orthodoxy that has nothing to do with Mary, and that is the Divine Wisdom. I need to read this book by Bulgakov ("The Bride of the Lamb") on that topic, and I believe I shall start now! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(opps - got book title slightly wrong)
[ 07. April 2006, 05:05: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
I need to dig out my Roman law books to discuss the changes in women's rights. In the interim, here is a beautiful exerpt from
Julian's Oration to the Mother of the Gods
"Who then is the Mother of the Gods? She is the source of the intellectual and creative gods, who in their turn guide the gods: she is both the mother and the spouse of mighty Zeus; a goddess mighty after one mighty,..She is the mistress of all life, and the cause of all generation, who easily brings to perfection all things that are made...She is the Motherless Maiden, enthroned at the very side of Zeus, and in very truth is the Mother of all the gods..
Emperor Julian II "the Blessed"
from an oration to Cybele composed at Pessinus, AVC MCXVI
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
1. SteveTom: the online Jewish encyc. is eclisped by William. S Dever distinguished Biblical Archeologist.
"Did God have a Wife?" is considered a 1st rate book, even more so is Prof Mark S. Smith's "The Polytheistic Origins of Biblical Monotheism" This is the most admired book in the field. Groundbreaking, the Jewish El was part of the worship of Ugarit.
This is a complete side issue. My point was that post-exilic Judaism did not have the same battle between monotheism and polytheism that earlier Judaism had.
Are you seriously suggesting that 1st-century Judaism was full of goddess worship?
And if not, the Church cannot be accused of suppressing it.
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
If you check this Google Feminine Archetypes you can read lots of articles and websites about various attitudes to the power of the feminine.
And here are examples of
Maiden, Mother and Crone.
The Sacred Feminine would have to be shown as an example from a human woman as much as from God, who made us in God's Image, and therefore females are part of God's Image as much as males. Just because there are fewer stories about women in the Hebrew Scriptures does not mean that there is no existence for a Sacred Feminine - the authors and redactors are (supposedly) men, and therefore much of the writings come from their view.
However, there are examples of God nurturing us like a mother, holding our hands as we learn to walk, being Spirit both with women's gender in Hebrew and Greek grammar..
And famous women are mentioned - eg, Deborah, Hannah, Jael, Huldah - who have done essential jobs to ensure the life of the nation.
IMO, there are plenty of examples which we can understand as long as we are aware of the kind of culture we are in, wherever we exist. And given the power of women in many cultures, not always publicly named, it seems to be deeply foundational.
As to Jesus, what about the pictures of him blessing the children and babies, sitting cuddling them on his knee? That is a picture symbolising the Static Feminine, Mother archetype, part of every human being.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
If Mary prays for us in the hour of our death, what is she doing other than mediating? How can Mary be a mediator between man and Jesus, but not between man and God ? That suggests a unitarian hierarchy: God - Jesus - Mary - ?men.
Coming down to earth for a moment, it's been said over and over that the dominance of men in the church springs from a preoccupation with, and a fear of, sex. That may be so, but maybe it's just a fear of women? Quite natural in other parts of creation (spiders come rather readily to mind).
Consider Hypatia, whose legend is everlasting. It's a great pity Charles Kingsley made a siren of her - thus pandering to the sex-horror theme.
She was in fact a wise and respected matron, head of the Neo-platonic School in Alexandria.
She was dragged from her chariot by a Christian mob and torn to pieces. Her story is well-documented history.
Now consider Catherine, who is supposed to pre-date Hypatia by a century, but whose legend was not propagated, so far as records show, until the 10th century C.E. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) This really is a story about sexual repression. I guess the church put it about to try to eclipse the legend of Hypatia. That's a very ungenerous speculation. But read the two stories for yourselves. Who deserves most to be remembered? Did Catherine even exist?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Comet Chaser,
Hunter-gatherer societies are not agrarian. Agrarian societies have fixed settlements and grow crops in a more labour-intensive economy that supports a much larger population than hunter-gathering. Producing a lot of children can be very bad news for hunter-gatherers who must cover large distances, and whose life-style cannot support a dense population, but it is essential for a non-nomadic, labour-intensive economy based on grain or rice etc. Historically, the status of women has tended to fall when societies shift from nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles to agrarian societies, that's what Steve is talking about, if I remember my Social Anthropology properly.
It was Callan actually, but that was exactly my point and you've put it very well, better than I probably would have done.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I should have been more specific. I refer to Catherine of Alexandria - her of the Catherine wheel and the magic flight to Sinai.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
If Mary prays for us in the hour of our death, what is she doing other than mediating? How can Mary be a mediator between man and Jesus, but not between man and God ? That suggests a unitarian hierarchy: God - Jesus - Mary - ?men.
Nope, the actual relationship is God/Jesus/Holy Spirit ie the Trinity - humans, with Mary on the human side helping us along to Jesus as our shepherd, gate of salvation, Redeemer and sole Mediator before God.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
If Mary prays for us in the hour of our death, what is she doing other than mediating? How can Mary be a mediator between man and Jesus, but not between man and God ?
If I ask someone to pray for me now and at the hour of my death, I am not asking them to be a mediator; I am asking them to be an intercessor.
Do you reject the idea of all intercessory prayer?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think the problem is that we do use the word mediator - outside Christianity - in such a way as to blow open the whole concept of mediation. A politician may mediate between two opposed groupings, someone may mediate between a Trade Union and an employer. Using the term this way it makes a certain amount of sense to describe Mary as a mediator, or a priest as a mediator between the laity and God. Of course if we are going to do this, then asking someone to pray for you makes that person a mediator, telling someone about Christiantiy makes you a mediator. And so forth.
However, all this mediation, from Mary downwards depends on the One Mediator Jesus Christ. There is one mediator between humanity and God, inasmuch as only Christ, as perfect God and perfect human being, is the only one who can adequately reconcile human beings to God. But Christ's action make it possible to evangelise, to pray for others, to assist those in need and so forth. It is not stretching the English language beyond breaking point to describe this as mediation although it is not, of course, the work of Christ. If one believes in the communion of saints, then the action of Mary and everyone else in praying for us falls under the latter category. In a sense one can call her a mediator, but one cannot use that term of her as one uses it of Christ. Without Christ's mediation there is no mediation.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
Chemin; nice comparison. Libanus's teacher was a woman as well, Asclepigenia? I can't remember just now, must look it up.
Also think of the deified Empresses: Livia, Faustina, Julia Domna. These were very important cults in the Empire; if you were a person of importance you wanted this appointment. And women served as priestesses to the Empresses.
These deified woman are poles apart from the long-suffering, chaste, Christian ideals. They were political, smart, sexual...
Steve, okay the William S. Dever book is subtitled "The Folk-Relgion of Israel" so whatever the scribes of "Kings" were writing, the folk were worshipping all kinds of goddesses, for how long? This is not my area, I'd read his book.
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveTom
Contributing Editor
# 23
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
Steve, okay the William S. Dever book is subtitled "The Folk-Relgion of Israel" so whatever the scribes of "Kings" were writing, the folk were worshipping all kinds of goddesses, for how long? This is not my area, I'd read his book.
The scribes of Kings were writing, THAT the folk were worshipping all kinds of goddesses.
No one is questioning that.
But can you really not see that that tells you nothing about the religion practised in the same region 900 years later?
--------------------
I saw a naked picture of me on the internet
Wearing Jesus's new snowshoes.
Well, golly gee.
- Eels
Posts: 1363 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
Oh, Steve; I get it...sorry to be a bit dense because, you are making the assumption that around Jesus' time until maybe 400 C.E the Jews were totally monotheistc. I really don't know.
What I can tell you, read J. Teixidor "The Pagan God" & the "Roman Near East" that cults of the Middle Eastern goddesses Astarte, Atargatis, Allat, Al 'Uzza, Manat, and more were very active and vibrant at the time of Jesus & much later.
Atargatis was a combination of Asherah and Anat. So did Jewish males & females go out and leave an offering at these goddesses altars? I don't know, not having studied the subject. That's why I recommended the Smith and Dever books. Ex-votos & inscriptions tell the tale.
But goddess worship was very strong in this area. And only really stamped out with Muhammad
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Moo. Thanks for clarifying and correcting my misconception of mediation. I've always confused it with intercession I think, which is rather odd, because I have always thought of the Roman Rite in other places as more user-friendly. For instance, catholic congregation confess to their brother and sisters in the general confession - thus implying a request for all of them to intercede. I think I fell prey to a latent anti-Mariology streak in that previous post.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Sorry to double post, but I've had this beautiful(tangential) image from "The Song of The Lord" - or to be precise, one very much like it, on my mind since the early hours of this morning. Just wanted to share it.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
Steve wrote:
quote:
The Church elevated Mary to the role of a virtual goddess, the mother of God, the bearer of Christ, mediator between God and man, an object of prayer and worship, the Queen of Heaven.
I really feel that we, as a church, raised Mary to such heights, cause it was easier than dealing with the truth and beauty of incarnation. The issue may be marginally about women, but essentially its about all humanity.
Let me explain my thinking - i think many Christians are profoundly uncomfortable with the close contact God wants to have with all humanity. I know I am!! I have a painting of Jesus washing Peters feet (by Siegar Koder) and i can really relate to Peters unease at having Jesus so near and so involved with him.
I feel that many of us want God to be involved in some of our life, but not in all of it. We only want to show God our freshly washed feet so to speak. So, we ritualise our contact with God, we formalise our prayers ... some of this is for good reason, but some is to provide a defense, a small breathing space between total honesty and our reality.
Mary offers me the image of what God has done for us. In clear 20-20 vision, i can see the effect of incarnation in all of Marys life. God has chosen to dwell in humanity - to be a small defenceless baby in the body and the arms of imperfect humanity. Gods demands on Mary were not that she change herself but that she give totally of herself allowing God to fill her and allowing God to live through her. Gods first humility was to allow Mary a choice - and so God was incarnated through Marys 'yes'.
Now - we could start to own this truth. God awaits our yes, God wants to be incarnated through our openess to the will of God... but, what do we, as a church, do? ... We decide that Mary couldn't possibly be a normal human being (God wouldn't deal with the mess of humanity). We keep finding ways to show Mary is not a normal human being but rather a semi-god. We begin to say Mary never had sex, Mary never sinned, Marys body never decomposed ... cause if Mary was normal and human, it would mean that God can and will do as much through us as he did through Mary
... and like Peter, a part of us is mightily afraid of what God might do if we but let go and let GOd.
So - to conclude of this little rant!! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ! - i think we make Mary into a goddess cause we are terrified of our own kinship with Jesus the Christ. ... 'Make me holy Lord, but not yet'
While our fear of Gods goodness might well have implications for feminism and womens freedom to become all God has made us to be, ....i think it has equal implications for us all - male and female, child and adult.
The sacred feminine is not a pretty perfect woman depicting how all women should be (we already have Barbie for that!) Its the 'virgin, mother, crone' reality that we need to own and celebrate. (IMhO )
[ 10. April 2006, 17:38: Message edited by: noneen ]
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
If we agree with your thinking we should call Byzantium The Roman empire & nobody does.
Nobody? Certainly a lot of people in the middle east do, from my reading. "Byzantine Empire" was a 19th century fabrication and is as unhistorical as a 19th century fabrication can get. NOBODY EVER called it that.
Quite. I think the people of 'Byzantine' society referred to themselves as Romans. And even today, the Turkish word for Greeks who live in 'Greece' translates as "Ionians", but the Turkish word for the Greeks of Turkey is "Rum" i.e. Roman. Not sure of the spelling there, though.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
Oh, Steve; I get it...sorry to be a bit dense because, you are making the assumption that around Jesus' time until maybe 400 C.E the Jews were totally monotheistc. I really don't know.
Sorry for the double post. You'd have to first define what you mean by "Jews" at the time in question, I think. My very limited knowledge all coming from the Oxford History of the Biblical Lands previously mentioned, but you had your totally Hellenistic Jews, your "Hellenizing" Jews showing Hellenistic philosphy as compatible with "Yahweh-ism" of some type, and your genuine monotheistic Jews. But that's just in Judah where at the time we've got the Pharisees, Saducees, etc.
In Samaria, the story is possibly different, but then those groups in Judah didn't consider these people Jews, even from the time of the return from exile. Hence the friction here.
And the people of Judah who had resettled in Egypt at the time of the exile are still another story.
But it seems largely the consensus that those connected with the Temple in Jesus's time and their intellectual heirs (Pharasees, Saducees, Essenes and so forth) were monotheistic. My opinion (such as it is) is that this represents the philosophical context for the development of Christianity - one that Jesus was explicitly reacting against but also developing further.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
but to return to the OP
quote:
What is the Sacred Feminine? What do people mean by this.
I think that the sacred feminine is not something outside of us, but the reality within. Accepting ourselves as children of God. (male/female/etc!). Owning our own potential for oneness with the creator.
Also, i was at a talk last night on Johns Gospel (no, really, i was!! ) Anyway, we were chatting about Judas, the Beloved and Peter. and saying that Peter could have gone either way (denial or accept forgiveness).
All the men were totally struck by the idea that we have the potential to be totally good or totally despairing. It struck me that women have been so labelled (virgin/whore) for all time!!
Is it harder for men to deal with their own sacredness than it is for women ?!?! dunno ?!?! it just seemed like that to me last night!!!!
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
Well I went to the library & checked the archeologist William S. Dever book "Did God Have a Wife"
He says Asherah worship went underground in post-Exilic Judaism. It surfaced in magic & obsessions with the demon Lilith & finally
burst out publically with the Zohar. Kabbalism The Shekinah is lauded as God's consort, the Bride, with erotic imagery of coition.
So Asherah worship led to Jews having the Matronit, Shekinah & Christians Mary.
hope this is uselful, very fascinating,
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mikethealtarboy
Apprentice
# 11317
|
Posted
One thing I've found peculiar about the "Sacred Feminine" issue, is that is seems to miss the dynamic of the Christian myth. It presumes that the divine *should* be expressed as male/female. His point, with his sex-rite, seemed to be not that sex *can* reflect the divine, but rather that the divine reflects sex!
This is not *completely* thought out, but as a gay man, I just don't see that to be the case. I feel like I embody the masculine/feminine just fine within myself, and don't need a "complement" in the opposite gender to complete me or bring about fruitfulness. I don't think "God" does either. The dicotomy that *is* expressed in Christianity is parent/child, or as Jungians would say, "senex/puer". I see them as genderless. They get the "masculine" term, because it's gramatically inclusive. (As in spanish, when "los padres" means dad *and* mom - not multiple dads!)
Or maybe I'm completely off base! I'm just throwing it out there. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posts: 9 | From: Nevada | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
universalist
Shipmate
# 10318
|
Posted
Re/ The Sacred Feminine...
My feeling regarding this is that the Sacred Feminine should be valued and loved in every female, as so ought the Sacred Male. Diversity working in Unity...perfect balance.
Dan Brown's moral point is just this...due to our cultures and religions we have lost much of the Sacred Female in favor of a male-dominated hierarchy model.
Augustine and a part of the early church began this out-of-balance trek with a distorted version of the creation story. The first "sin" was committed by woman and she now deserves to be "ruled over" by her husband. Sin is transmitted genetically through the woman unto every generation. Such doctrines as the immaculate conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary were erected to keep Mary from the "stain" of "original sin". Such would be laughable, were it not for the pain that such teachings has inflicted uncessarily on women over the centuries.
Even St Paul had not ridden himself of such distorted belief, commanding women to "keep silence in the churches"
The Church in Exile (Spong) values women eqully with men, their intuitive gifts and ability to wield authority without dominance or power...
Posts: 66 | From: portland oregon | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
universalist:
quote:
....intuitive gifts and ability to wield authority without dominance or power...
The intuitive qualities of the female have been recognised, but what on earth is authority without dominance or power - other than a figment or unrealistic ideal ? ?
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
madteawoman
Shipmate
# 11174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Re/ The Sacred Feminine...
Dan Brown's moral point is just this...due to our cultures and religions we have lost much of the Sacred Female in favor of a male-dominated hierarchy model.
Where on earth in the DVC does Brown give us an alternative to this model? Oh that's right, when he 'allows' Mary to be a good little woman who gets married and has children.
And noelper, I'm with you on the authority/dominance question. Seems to me that is the kicker in the gospel story that is continualy overlooked: the idea of servant leadership. I always thought if the churches took that seriously there would be no problem with women in leadership. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Listen carefully to my words, and let this be your consolation.
Bear with me, and I will speak; then after I have spoken, mock on.
Posts: 1446 | From: by the fireside | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by universalist:
Augustine and a part of the early church began this out-of-balance trek with a distorted version of the creation story. The first "sin" was committed by woman and she now deserves to be "ruled over" by her husband.
I think you'd have trouble pulling this out of Augustine's writings. But feel free to quote something to prove me wrong. I am willing to learn.
Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noelper
Shipmate
# 9961
|
Posted
Dunno about Augustine, but Eve's misdemeanour in the garden and subsequently 'deserved' punishment of subservience, was taught to me as Sunday School fodder.
--------------------
Nil, nada, rien
Posts: 439 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
A good example of feminine power would be Deborah,the prophetesss in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Judaism has it better than Christianity in that respect, Eve wasn't responsible, they both were. Sex isn't sinful but a positive Mitzvah - a blessing.
As for God being genderless, well Mike I agree you are complete as you are. I think of myself also as having male & female qualities but in reality God is always depicted as guy & it's very tiresome for women to be totally written out of religion.
I once saw a pic of an interreligious conference in a Buddhist magazine; it consisted solely of men; was I depressed....it's pretty appalling to be 1/2 of the human race and just insvisible.
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mikethealtarboy
Apprentice
# 11317
|
Posted
I'd like to point out that Augustine didn't start male dominance- Patriarchy did. And it'd been going on a few thousand years before him. ;-)
And whether or not Original Sin is transmitted by a woman or otherwise, I don't think it's either laughable or painful, simply a statement of the way of things. It's not much different that the eastern notion of Maya, or Illusion.
The Pookah - Or Judith!
I've been thinking about this in terms of Inclusive Language too. It seems to me the only way to really balance it back out is to simply only use one set of pronouns, like the Finnish do. Hes and Shes are all refered to the same.
I'm certainly sorry for the way woman have been excluded for so long from so many areas. I hope we can bring back some honest balance during our time here.
Posts: 9 | From: Nevada | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
les@BALM
The Ship's Visionary
# 11237
|
Posted
Whoever she is, she sounds good to me
--------------------
il sole d'Italia mi è rimasto nel cure
Italia campioni del mondo ****
Tiggs the cat.
Posts: 1863 | From: Canada, eh! | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
quote:
Dan Brown's moral point is just this...due to our cultures and religions we have lost much of the Sacred Female in favor of a male-dominated hierarchy model.
The idea of the holy grail being a womb is not unique to Mary of Magdelene - it was first applied to Mary, mother of Jesus.
Catholic theology speaks of Marys womb as the 'holy of holies' - the dwelling place of God, the new ark of the new Covenant. Hence many older cathedrals are named in her honour(Our Lady, Mary etc), since the cathedral holds the body of Christ (Eucharist) as Mary did. She is even referred to in some old literature as the true grail - her womb being the grail or cup that held the blood of Christ.
Mary of Magdelene might well have been a woman who married Jesus. However if you were looking for an image of the sacred feminine, surely the woman who choose to say 'yes', and whose womb carried and birthed God would be at least equally as vital and engaging, as the woman that married God and carried the seed of God.
So - I'm wondering if our conversations about DVC and the 'sacred feminine' are about woman power or about men and women united in sex.
- What is the difference between those two understandings.
- Is the image of Mary saying yes, not more empowering for womens understanding of themselves as sacred, than the image of Mary of Magdelene becoming important through her marriage to an important man?
... am genuinely curious to hear opinions on this !!!
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
sorry to double post - missed edit window.
just wanted to edit so i didn't sound like i thought the hero-worship of Mary is OK - it drives me mad!!! however, the truth behind the gaudiness is at least as convincing as the Magdelene stuff!!
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
The Church elevated Mary to the role of a virtual goddess, the mother of God, the bearer of Christ, mediator between God and man, an object of prayer and worship, the Queen of Heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by noneen:
The idea of the holy grail being a womb is not unique to Mary of Magdelene - it was first applied to Mary, mother of Jesus.
Catholic theology speaks of Marys womb as the 'holy of holies' - the dwelling place of God, the new ark of the new Covenant. Hence many older cathedrals are named in her honour(Our Lady, Mary etc), since the cathedral holds the body of Christ (Eucharist) as Mary did. She is even referred to in some old literature as the true grail - her womb being the grail or cup that held the blood of Christ.
One thing which struck me about the book was the absence of Our Lady. The only reference is to French minstrels singing lays about `Our Lady' but that is taken to be about Mary Magdalene!
I found the whole `sacred feminine' (and divine goddess -- as opposed to the undivine goddess?) stuff tedious and not at all liberating. When he was describing the role of sex being that in reaching orgasm men's minds go blank and so they can see God, I was thinking, so what about women? I'm more than just a useful tool for seeing God. I also feel that seeing sex as a way to God actually devalues what sex is because it stops it being about the two people expressing their love and commitment and makes it about something else.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
Hmm, why do you see yourself as a tool Carys? Sex takes two to be something more than a mere act - Taoists indeed see it as a path of wholeness.
MM is to my mind more important as she was Jesus's chief disciple & in DVC spouse. This mirrors the idea of God having a spouse, whether you call it the Shekinah or Asherah, who indeed is the spouse of YWHW, see my previous post.
So Dan Brown's book hits a nerve as half of spirituality whether you regard it as the Jungian feminine in yourself or your physical femininity is entirely denied in the current Monotheistic religions...
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
Hmm, why do you see yourself as a tool Carys? Sex takes two to be something more than a mere act - Taoists indeed see it as a path of wholeness.
I don't. My point was that Brown's description of sex and the sacred feminine came across to me as the woman being merely a tool. I was saying I'm far more than that.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
Carys, well the point is - sex makes men see god-dess & women are the Goddess. That's the point that Dan Brown is making & which reverberates so strongly.
The Virgin Mary is more of a 'tool' in the sense that her womb is important but she isn't Jesus's partner or even top follower.
Just contrast this with the Goddess Isis and Horus. Isis is a profoundly important goddess even though she is portrayed as Horus's mother & indeed the Virgin & child statues are based on the Isian prototypes..
If you want to see a true paaen to the Goddess just read Apuleius's "Golden Ass" the section where he has a revelation of Isis. Magnificent.
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
The sacred feminine bit was the weakest part of the DVC. Having been a pagan it was not shocking or very interesting at all. Mary Magdelene was still presented as being the wife of Jesus, which doesn't make her very central. Dan Brown should have gone one step further and made Mary Magdelene the leader/daughter of God and had Jesus be her husband or just a bloke that knicked her ideas/was the acceptable presentation of those ideas to a patriarchial society.
Now that would have lead to decent burnings of Brown in effigy. ^^
Well, you missed an important point in the book--Mary Magdalene was supposed to lead the Church, not Peter!
And there are plenty of books--both fiction and (supposed?) fact--that explore the other options you mentioned!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mikethealtarboy:
One thing I've found peculiar about the "Sacred Feminine" issue, is that is seems to miss the dynamic of the Christian myth. It presumes that the divine *should* be expressed as male/female. His point, with his sex-rite, seemed to be not that sex *can* reflect the divine, but rather that the divine reflects sex!
This is not *completely* thought out, but as a gay man, I just don't see that to be the case. I feel like I embody the masculine/feminine just fine within myself, and don't need a "complement" in the opposite gender to complete me or bring about fruitfulness. I don't think "God" does either. The dicotomy that *is* expressed in Christianity is parent/child, or as Jungians would say, "senex/puer". I see them as genderless. They get the "masculine" term, because it's gramatically inclusive. (As in spanish, when "los padres" means dad *and* mom - not multiple dads!)
Or maybe I'm completely off base! I'm just throwing it out there.
For me, it's really, really important that the Divine includes Feminine. For the past 10-15 years, I've only been able to relate to God as She--and I was heading that way long before.
FWIW, the "grammatically inclusive" terms really aren't. The US has sadly backslidden on non-sexist language...but we knew better for a while.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
GK you might find it interesting to read Bulgakov on the uncreated divine Wisdom, the feminine aspect which IS God, and in some mysterious way ties the 3 persons of the Trinity together (for Bulgakov, anyway). The book I'm thinking of is called The Bride of the Lamb.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Thanks, MT. I like Sophia stuff, and Shekinah, etc.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the Pookah
Shipmate
# 9186
|
Posted
MT great recommendation;
I love Bulgakov "The Master and Margarita" was gripping. The Russians are sublime on Sophia, in fact if I remember correctly there was a theological movement about it but cannot remember..
And Mary Magdalene is termed "Apostle to the Apostles', the Russians do seem much more holistic in terms of the sacred feminine.
the Pookah
Posts: 926 | From: the Northern colonies | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
