Thread: The sacred feminine Board: The Da Vinci Code / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=66;t=000010
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 
I wanted to pick up on something Universalist posted on another thread.

quote:
we have lost the Sacred Feminine
What is the Sacred Feminine? What do people mean by this. Serious question. I was once a Pagan and I didn't get it when people used this phrase then. I don't get it now either.
 
Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
Yeah, it's somewhat vague. Clearly, it means something other than simply "Goddess" otherwise people would just say that.

The way I normally unpack the phrase, speaking as a current Pagan, is that it represents a cultural archetype of divinity in which Goddesses are primary and the culture is organized around that feminine primacy. The Sacred Feminine exists as an archetype even if the great golden age of "The Goddess" never existed (which it almost certainly did not as any widespread form of religion or culture). As an archetype, however, it represents a longing for fully empowered Priestesses at the front and center of religion and spirituality and is also tied to psychological forces related to Maiden, Mother and Crone as archetypes. Thus, there is also an element within the idea of the Sacred Feminie that woman can and should be honored for the spiritual roles they inhabit over the course of their lives.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Goethe talked about the ewige Weibliche, the eternal feminine.

I'm not positive that's the same thing, but I think it is.

Moo
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
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. ^^
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
I actually don't think making M. Magdalene the daughter is necessary. The scene with the great rite, worked. It was all about the 'divine feminine' the goddess, fruitfulness, sex as being sacred, sex not being something hidden away but publically celebrated.
This is what actually happened in real cults like that of Cybele, Magna Mater, maenads having sex. A great scholarly book is Prof. Lynn Roller's "In Search of God the Mother" 1st class all the way. And right now is the traditional Megalesia, the Roman celebration of Cybele. I can see it returning..
the Pookah
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
my only take on it would be that the Divine is best when balanced. therefore, with the strong emphasis on the masculine borne of our strongly patriarcial history, we are "unbalanced" and the feminine needs strengthening. or something.

I know myself that when I met my first priest who called God a "she" I suddenly felt much ore like I could be a part of the church. I hadn't realized that I had felt marginalized before that.

To me the Divine Feminine is merely the feminine aspects of God.

Comet
 
Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
This is what actually happened in real cults like that of Cybele, Magna Mater, maenads having sex. A great scholarly book is Prof. Lynn Roller's "In Search of God the Mother" 1st class all the way. And right now is the traditional Megalesia, the Roman celebration of Cybele. I can see it returning..
Hmmm, yes. The Ludi Megalenses. Formal performances of the plays of Terence (no slaves allowed). Sounds just what a 21st century audience would go for. I would have thought that if the cult of the Magna Mater involved public sex that Cicero would have noticed. Strangely, he doesn't mention anything about it.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
What I don't get about Brown's thing with the sacred feminine is that the Imperial State Church is supposed to have repressed it, when obviously the exact opposite is the case.

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.
It makes more sense to call Catholic Church the champion of the sacred feminine than its suppressor.
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
There is nothing remotely like that in Judaism, in the New Testament, in Islam or Protestantism.
It makes more sense to call Catholic Church the champion of the sacred feminine than its suppressor.
It's possible to argue the reverse. The qualities of Mary which are emphasised are her obedience and submission, and the dogma of the virgin birth (and especially of the perpetual virginity) deprives her of a more normal, sexual reproductive function. By making a mortal into the Mother of God, the church has considerably distanced God her(?)self from the idea of motherhood. And by denying women entry to the priesthood, Mary is effectively made the sole female mediator of divine grace, which may be fine for Mary, but doesn't look so hot for womankind at large.

Just a thought.

T.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
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.
"Virtual goddess" was never right, but your point is otherwise well made.

But Mary is not the only example of the sacred feminine. The Canon of the Bible from the Catholic point of view also contains the Book of Wisdom within the "Wisdom" books and its central idea of the feminine Wisdom of God.
quote:
12. Resplendent and unfading is Wisdom, and she is readily perceived by those who love her, and found by those who seek her.
13 She hastens to make herself known in anticipation of men's desire;
14 he who watches for her at dawn shall not be disappointed, for he shall find her sitting by his gate.
15 For taking thought of her is the perfection of prudence, and he who for her sake keeps vigil shall quickly be free from care;
16 Because she makes her own rounds, seeking those worthy of her, and graciously appears to them in the ways, and meets them with all solicitude.
17 For the first step toward discipline is a very earnest desire for her; then, care for discipline is love of her;
18 love means the keeping of her laws; To observe her laws is the basis for incorruptibility;
19 and incorruptibility makes one close to God;
20 thus the desire for Wisdom leads up to a kingdom.
21 If, then, you find pleasure in throne and scepter, you princes of the peoples, honor Wisdom, that you may reign as kings forever. Wisdom 6:12-22
Wisdom is clearly God's Wisdom, an attribute flowing from and derinving its virtue from God:

quote:
21 Such things as are hidden I learned and such as are plain;
22 for Wisdom, the artificer of all, taught me. For in her is a spirit intelligent, holy, unique, Manifold, subtle, agile, clear, unstained, certain, Not baneful, loving the good, keen, unhampered, beneficent,
23kindly, Firm, secure, tranquil, all-powerful, all-seeing, And pervading all spirits, though they be intelligent, pure and very subtle.
24 For Wisdom is mobile beyond all motion, and she penetrates and pervades all things by reason of her purity.
25 For she is an aura of the might of God and a pure effusion of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nought that is sullied enters into her.
26 For she is the refulgence of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God, the image of his goodness.
27 And she, who is one, can do all things, and renews everything while herself perduring; And passing into holy souls from age to age, she produces friends of God and prophets.
28 For there is nought God loves, be it not one who dwells with Wisdom. Wisdom 7: 21-28
Given this paen to feminine Wisdom as an attribute and aura of God - who did the repressing of the sacred feminine in dropping the Book of Wisdom from their Bible?
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
Neither is "mediator between God and man", despite what some Catholics believe - that Mediator is Jesus and none other.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
It's possible to argue the reverse.
I don't buy it at all....

quote:

The qualities of Mary which are emphasised are her obedience and submission…
Yes, but those were the qualities universally expected of women in the ancient world - by Jews, Christians, Romans, Greeks - and later in Islam. By inventing an obedient and submissive Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, Catholicism was not demoting the feminine, it was invading the all-male preserve of the deity, breaking the glass sky.

quote:
and the dogma of the virgin birth (and especially of the perpetual virginity) deprives her of a more normal, sexual reproductive function.
Yes it does. But does celibacy make her any less feminine than Christ's celibacy makes him less masculine?
By omitting sex, wasn't the Church elevating every area of motherhood except the one which has any male input (so to speak)?

quote:
By making a mortal into the Mother of God, the church has considerably distanced God her(?)self from the idea of motherhood.
I think not, because God was nowhere near the idea of motherhood before that. The Hebrew scriptures, the NT, and other pre-Constantinian Christian writings have very very little idea of God being feminine or maternal, God is masculine and paternal. By effectively making Mary a goddess, second only to the Lord, surely the Church brought motherhood far closer to the divine.

quote:
And by denying women entry to the priesthood, Mary is effectively made the sole female mediator of divine grace, which may be fine for Mary, but doesn't look so hot for womankind at large.
But Judaism and the early church didn't have much in the way of women priests either, so without the elevation of Mary, the Church would only have Christ as sole mediator between humanity and God, which is hardly in itself a jackpot for feminism, is it?
 
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SteveTom:
By inventing an obedient and submissive Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, Catholicism was not demoting the feminine, it was invading the all-male preserve of the deity, breaking the glass sky.
And the respective mythoi of Juno/Hera, Athena, Aphrodite/Venus, Diana, etc, had no impact on this 'all-male preserve'?

T.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by SteveTom:

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.
It makes more sense to call Catholic Church the champion of the sacred feminine than its suppressor.
And look who the champions of the sacred feminine are. The gnostics, most of whom scored the unlikely success of making St. Augustine look like a feminist, the Albigensians (ditto) and the Knights Templar, whose twin objectives were to slaughter as many Saracens as possible and to get extremely rich. It ties in with the kind of cod Arthuriana which pits feminist Druids against sexist Christians.

Christians, of course, frequently have been sexist but there is really no point in trying to find some misty celtic realm of gender equality. 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.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Goethe talked about the ewige Weibliche, the eternal feminine.

I'm not positive that's the same thing, but I think it is.

Moo
(Tingle going down my spine as I recall Mahler's setting of that passage of Goethe in the 8th Symphony... [Smile] )

Wagner took on the idea of the "eternal feminine" in some of his operas. He uses male and female as metaphors for power and love respectively, and one way of reading both the Ring and Parsifal is as the redemption by love of the will to power: hence the "eternal feminine" redeems the "male" lust for power.

I'm not sure whether Wagner took the idea from Goethe, or whether they both got it from somewhere else. Either way, it seems to be a significant theme in German Romanticism.
 
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 
Mertseger, thanks, that's the first time I've heared an articulate explanation of the concept.

quote:
The qualities of Mary which are emphasised are her obedience and submission
But surely obedience and submission to God are qualities expected of everyone in Christianity (and Islam and Judaism) - isn't it a red herring to suggest that in elevating Mary's qualities in this area the church was specifically opressing women? Likewise Christ is believed to have been totally submissive to the Father whilst on Earth.

I have never heared any reference to Mary as being submissive to Joseph - I suppose people who have believed in male headship in marriage down the ages would have believed that she was, but it isn't sung from the rooftops.

quote:
And the respective mythoi of Juno/Hera, Athena, Aphrodite/Venus, Diana, etc, had no impact on this 'all-male preserve'?
How much do we know about what these cults actually believed? I'm wondering not so much about physical details of rites, but of how people worshipping these goddesses concieved their relationship with them, and what they concieved the role of a priest/priestess was. I wonder if the differences between them and the Abrahamic faiths goes deeper than gender of diety, and that one is comparing psychological apples and oranges.

quote:
This is what actually happened in real cults like that of Cybele, Magna Mater, maenads having sex. A great scholarly book is Prof. Lynn Roller's "In Search of God the Mother" 1st class all the way. And right now is the traditional Megalesia, the Roman celebration of Cybele. I can see it returning..
Are you volunteering, Pookah? [Razz]
 
Posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep (# 5267) on :
 
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.

Hagiographies of female saints, especially those who aren't all that well-known, are often very telling examples of how a female was expected to act by the church. My patroness, St. Rita (also patroness of impossible causes, baseball, and women changing careers) is an example. Many of the stories about her go, "She wanted to be a nun, but her parents wanted her to get married, so she did! Wasn't she such a good girl to listen to her parents? Her husband was drunk and abusive, and she prayed for him, and he was stabbed! Wasn't she such a good wife for submitting to him? Her husband died of his wounds, and her sons wanted to go seek revenge, but she prayed for them, and they died, wasn't she such a good woman to pray for her sons to die rather than sin?"

I also find it kind of telling that a few of the great reformers of the Catholic Church have been women (St. Theresa of Avila springs to mind). If the Church did so much to suppress women, they'd do everything to erase the memories of these reformers. Instead, they name churches after them!
 
Posted by Jonathan the Free (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da Wonder Sheep:
... My patroness, St. Rita (also patroness of impossible causes, baseball, and women changing careers) is an example. ...
Cor, she wasn't at the front of the queue when they were handing out the popular patronal subjects was she?
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
You all obviously have never heard of the goddess "Asherah" her poles kept littering the Temple. Israel had a goddess, I suggest you read William Dever's "Did God have a Wife?" (he's a Jewish convert).
There were many powerful goddesses in the Middle East, Asherah, Astarte, Atargatis Dea Syria, Anat, Allat (yup,) From Turkey to Carthage, they were powerful, protected cities, had massive temples. Until the henotheism of El became supreme & then etc....So Mary is pretty pale compared to the big popular Roman goddesses:
Isis & Cybele.
And for our scholar. Maenads existed in Greek Anatolia for the 'Wild Mountain Mother' Cybele. Since we don't have slaves today the issue is moot, but naturally Christianity didn't mind. 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.
I don't need concepts of 'submission''sinfulness' etc...Isis, Cybele, are coming back for this very reason.
the Pookah
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
I have never heared any reference to Mary as being submissive to Joseph - I suppose people who have believed in male headship in marriage down the ages would have believed that she was, but it isn't sung from the rooftops.
You won't find any hint of that in the Akathist Hymn to St. Joseph.

Instead, it says things like this:

quote:
Having heard in the Scriptures of the Lord Who said: Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, Emmanuel, you did believe what was told to you by the angel, O righteous Joseph; and like a sealed book, wherein the Word was inscribed by the finger of the Father, you took Mary into your own house, and like a servant you waited upon her with fear and zeal.
and

quote:
Taking the divinely chosen maiden into your home, O blessed Joseph, you loved her as your betrothed, you honored her as the most-holy Virgin and Mother of the Savior of the world, and you ministered to her with fear and reverence.

 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the Pookah:
You all obviously have never heard of the goddess "Asherah" her poles kept littering the Temple.
I was just reading about this in my Oxford History of the Biblical Lands. Tangent: an excellent book for amateur's such as myself /tangent.

I can't recall, but the chapter on this made a strong case that the whole Asherah thing was suppressed, at least in Judah, during the return from exile. In fact, the post-exilic writers denigrated Samaritans and others for just these practices. So that's what, circa 400-500 BCE?

The other strong assertion of male divinity, perhaps at the expense of female was cited in this work during the establishment of the undivided monarchy in Israel around 1100 BCE, give or take. Can't remember the full story here, but it was along the lines of the following: by uniting disparate tribes under a permenant kingship (as opposed to "judges" or chiefs), the king became the focus of national life; times were tough and uniting under a single permanent king helped against the Philistines, etc. Religion followed suit as the king and Temple became important elements of religious expression.

They have a picture of a nice coin or piece of pottery with a picture (yes, picture) of "Yahweh and his Asherah". Very interesting stuff.

I'm way out of my depth here, but this was a very interesting book (about 700 pages) with nice pictures and has recently been on sale by Oxford University Press for not very much money at all.
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by cometchaser (# 10353) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Cusanus (# 692) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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]


(opps - got book title slightly wrong)

[ 07. April 2006, 05:05: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
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
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
I should have been more specific. I refer to Catherine of Alexandria - her of the Catherine wheel and the magic flight to Sinai.
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
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
 
Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
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
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chemincreux (# 10635) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
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] ! - 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 [Biased] )

[ 10. April 2006, 17:38: Message edited by: noneen ]
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
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!! [Biased] ) 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!!!!
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Mikethealtarboy (# 11317) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by universalist (# 10318) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
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 ? ?
 
Posted by madteawoman (# 11174) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by noelper (# 9961) on :
 
Dunno about Augustine, but Eve's misdemeanour in the garden and subsequently 'deserved' punishment of subservience, was taught to me as Sunday School fodder.
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Mikethealtarboy (# 11317) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by les@BALM (# 11237) on :
 
Whoever she is, she sounds good to me [Biased]
 
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
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 !!!
 
Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
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!!
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
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
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
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
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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. [Yipee]
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.
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks, MT. I like Sophia stuff, and Shekinah, etc.

[Smile]
 
Posted by the Pookah (# 9186) on :
 
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
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0