Why no mention of Heavenly mother?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Could it be that heavenly mother is fat and ugly and he is ashamed to be married to her? Whenever he appears to people he is by himself or with Jesus, he never brings his wife.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Harmony,

I think it says a whole lot about the nature of men and very little about the nature of God.

Absolutely. Men create God as a reflection of themselves. No question about this.

To clarify a bit, I meant that when we step back and look at some of the "stuff" folks claim God says or does, it makes God look like a pretty horrible, immature, twisted, ego maniacal type of being.

Of course I do not think there is such a being. ;-)

~dancer~

[_harmony]

Hi Harmony,

I think it says a whole lot about the nature of men and very little about the nature of God.

Absolutely. Men create God as a reflection of themselves. No question about this.

To clarify a bit, I meant that when we step back and look at some of the "stuff" folks claim God says or does, it makes God look like a pretty horrible, immature, twisted, ego maniacal type of being.

Of course I do not think there is such a being. ;-)

~dancer~

Whenever I see something horrible, immature, twisted, ego maniacal type of behavior, I figure we can always find men behind it, not God. Because that's the kind of behavior I've always seen men exhibit. My personal observations about God are always the opposite of what I see from men. So I have no problem deciding which is which, and who is leading who and doing what. So while I regularly lose faith in men, prophets, presidents, and assorted other men, I never lose faith in God.

[_huckelberry]

During Neolithic times it was the Goddess who was worshipped.

Humans had not yet connected the reality that intercourse had something to do with a woman giving birth, hence the idea that a woman could bring forth a child was revered. In addition, many early agricultural societies honored the earth (and nature) as an awareness emerged into the human mind that the earth and sun brought forth life.

It wasn't until the origins of patriarchy, (think Semitic tribal nomads destroying pagan societies, ie. Moses slaughtering the Canaanites), when women were moved into a subservient, degraded place in society.

Once humans realized that sex resulted in birth, males thought that the sperm alone was the reason for life. Women were believed to just be the "oven" so to speak. The whole ethos chanced into one of male dominance/woman subservience.

The very creation story chanced... rather than women bringing forth life, patriarchal leaders changed the story so women came from man (Adam and Eve).

It wasn't until the mid 1700's that science understood a sperm and egg were needed to create life. And, with this, slowly, VERY slowly things are changing.

Here we are four centuries later, and some men are STILL holding onto the patriarchal mythology. :-(


~dancer~

this is in some ways a pretty myth. It is not hard to see why one might want to hold it. It is useful,like any good myth, for creating questions about the assumed oder of things. It pointed asks if there is any good reason for the power imbalance between men and women. Any good reason is very hard to find.

Yet I remain fullly convinced it is 100 percent myth. History was simply far more complicated and violent earlier and later. well except for that maybe maybe not imaginary matriarcal society in 3500 bc in a corner of Turkey.

[_harmony]

During Neolithic times it was the Goddess who was worshipped.

Humans had not yet connected the reality that intercourse had something to do with a woman giving birth, hence the idea that a woman could bring forth a child was revered. In addition, many early agricultural societies honored the earth (and nature) as an awareness emerged into the human mind that the earth and sun brought forth life.

It wasn't until the origins of patriarchy, (think Semitic tribal nomads destroying pagan societies, ie. Moses slaughtering the Canaanites), when women were moved into a subservient, degraded place in society.

Once humans realized that sex resulted in birth, males thought that the sperm alone was the reason for life. Women were believed to just be the "oven" so to speak. The whole ethos chanced into one of male dominance/woman subservience.

The very creation story chanced... rather than women bringing forth life, patriarchal leaders changed the story so women came from man (Adam and Eve).

It wasn't until the mid 1700's that science understood a sperm and egg were needed to create life. And, with this, slowly, VERY slowly things are changing.

Here we are four centuries later, and some men are STILL holding onto the patriarchal mythology. :-(


~dancer~

this is in some ways a pretty myth. It is not hard to see why one might want to hold it. It is useful,like any good myth, for creating questions about the assumed oder of things. It pointed asks if there is any good reason for the power imbalance between men and women. Any good reason is very hard to find.

Yet I remain fullly convinced it is 100 percent myth. History was simply far more complicated and violent earlier and later. well except for that maybe maybe not imaginary matriarcal society in 3500 bc in a corner of Turkey.

Which part do you think is the myth, huck? And can you provide some foundation for your belief? Because TD's viewpoint is well documented in anthopological literature.

Or do you prefer to believe it's a myth, because you hold fast to a different myth? The one where God told men that women were to be despised, marginalized, treated like animals, and beaten without consequences because of the behavior of the mythical Eve, when she ate the apple?

[_truth dancer]

this is in some ways a pretty myth. It is not hard to see why one might want to hold it. It is useful,like any good myth, for creating questions about the assumed oder of things. It pointed asks if there is any good reason for the power imbalance between men and women. Any good reason is very hard to find.

No huck, the myth is that God created Adam (put him on this planet six thousand years ago), and created Eve from his rib.

And no the reasons for the power imbalance are well acknowledged and understood. Strong male dominated herding societies with a powerful "flame throwing God" (Joseph Cambpell), like Yahweh and Zeus overtook the more peaceful agriculture societies. And with the advent of the plow, males strength quickly created an imbalance in power.

Yet I remain fullly convinced it is 100 percent myth. History was simply far more complicated and violent earlier and later. well except for that maybe maybe not imaginary matriarcal society in 3500 bc in a corner of Turkey.

Yes, it is more complicated than this of course. We can read books and books on the topic, doesn't negate the origin of patriarchy and the end of Goddess worshipping peoples.

;-)

~dancer~

[_huckelberry]

this is in some ways a pretty myth. It is not hard to see why one might want to hold it. It is useful,like any good myth, for creating questions about the assumed oder of things. It pointed asks if there is any good reason for the power imbalance between men and women. Any good reason is very hard to find.

No huck, the myth is that God created Adam (put him on this planet six thousand years ago), and created Eve from his rib.

And no the reasons for the power imbalance are well acknowledged and understood. Strong male dominated herding societies with a powerful "flame throwing God" (Joseph Cambpell), like Yahweh and Zeus overtook the more peaceful agriculture societies. And with the advent of the plow, males strength quickly created an imbalance in power.

Yet I remain fullly convinced it is 100 percent myth. History was simply far more complicated and violent earlier and later. well except for that maybe maybe not imaginary matriarcal society in 3500 bc in a corner of Turkey.

Yes, it is more complicated than this of course. We can read books and books on the topic, doesn't negate the origin of patriarchy and the end of Goddess worshipping peoples.

;-)

~dancer~

The myth is?? I doubt there is only one myth, Yes the adam story is myth. Not the only myth in circulation. A popular myth started in the last century was one of a division in eras between matriarcal peaceful and patriarcal violent. it is a comforting fantasy. If you wish to view it as real history instead of story. I do not agree and have seen no convincing evidence that it happened. I realize some people have proposed it as historical. Evidence I have seen is far from supporting it. Then maybe I suffer from reading to many books (not religious stuff, but academic books on the subject) which saw the picture of peacefuil agrarian matriarchal societies as a myth. I could be possibly wrong but I see no harm in reminding you that your picture is far from being certain. It is about a time far enough in the past that differing interpretations can and do exist.

What really puzzles me is the quick jump in two post to the assumption that I am supporting male dominance as God ordained order. I said nothing remotely like that. I do not believe that. what the.... gives ??

When I said I saw little to support the imbalance of power I meant that it is not justified and the imbalance should end. Period.

[_truth dancer]

What really puzzles me is the quick jump in two post to the assumption that I am supporting male dominance as God ordained order. I said nothing remotely like that. I do not believe that. what the.... gives ??

Hey Huck,

I'm not sure what gave you the impression that I thought you were supporting male dominance. I do not think you do so at all....never have. :-) I apologize if I gave that impression.

I've read dozens of books and journal articles on this topic. While again, yes the transformation of society is complex my impressions is that there is a basic story that is accepted by virtually all experts/scholars in the field. If you have some sources that suggest otherwise maybe you could share them?

This topic is one of my favorites and I would love to read any new research if you are aware of something that may shed more light on our understanding.

Thanks Huck,

~dancer~

[_huckelberry]

I wonder if the history of patriarchy and matriarchy is a diversion of subject. Perhaps a little but the subject started with the effect on social roles in Mormon culture and how those roles are affected by the unusual presence of goddess in Mormon belief. Maybe her presence would have more influence if she had a name. Or maybe nameless is a condition shaping the influence.

However in history it is hard to focus the actual influence of goddesses with or without names. Consider the role of Athena in the Iliad. Not peaceful not outside patriarchal expectations, but the Greeks were patriarchal despite having important feminie Gods. One important question is whether there were real societies more peacefully matriarchal than the Greeks. Some people have said yes others no.

Dancer I do not know which material you are familiar with on the history. I remember that you are interested in Joseph
Cambells work.I have enjoyed Mr Campbells masks of God series of books. They are perhaps an area of agreement between you and I . I do not doubt his picture of a shift from myths focusing on the natuaral agrarian cycles to the rise of myths focused on law and political power. I think it is clear that shift happened in the time between 35000 bc and the start of the common era. I do not believe that this change was all good or bad. I think common wisdom was pushed to the sidlines sometimes in the search for objective rules governing society.

I will try to summarize what I understand as the history involved. People started expanding technology in areas where agriculture formed the basis of expanding populations. The growth of knowledge was a mixed blessing. Oppportunity also increased the sources of conflict. There would have been land use conflicts (crops or herds?)Conflict would have grown over compition for land and the produce. The result would be that wars increased. In those conflicts larger social groups, city states, bigger areas, empires. I think the shift in myths is a result of the change in political structures from village to empire. For better or worse these changes resulted from human efforts to maintain order at the time that growth in population, goods, treasures, weapons, increased the potential for piracy, theft or simply compitition for who gets the fat.

In the cycles of peace and war, sure there were times of relative peace. (suprise US had a few years of peace in the last decade of the last century, it happens occasionally) I can imagine that it is possible that there was some sort of golden time when expanding agriculture capabliities kept ahead of population enough that there was reduced pressure to war. Maybe.

I might clarify that I do not have reason or inclination to doubt the possiblity that women played the foundational creative role in developing agriculture and other related technologies which are the foundation of civilization. What I do believe is that the problems which lead to war are generated by the civilization process we find ourselves struggling in. It is a problem men and women share.