portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

faith & spirituality

I believe God is a woman

I believe God is a woman
I believe God is a woman
that would explain alot.
huh? 19.Dec.2004 22:35

shaker

A lot of what?

Hah 20.Dec.2004 00:51

a human being

You think that God has sex organs and hormones that make up the differences between men and women? Interesting. I would have thought that God had no physical form.

Late night conjecture 20.Dec.2004 01:23

Jim Lockhart

Could it not be that the physical form of God is the pysical universe, that God is not so much a thing as a process. The physical laws which we see processing the universe are also operating in the biosphere, and likewise can also be charted in the noosphere. So, perhaps the universe is a living, minding being, connected at every point to every other point, beyond our familiar and conforting time and space coordinates. An integrated unit, a rhyme, a rhythm, truly "one verse"

It seems to me that the attempt to extract the Creator from his Creation has alienated us Creatures from both the Creator and Creation. Possibley what the story of the Fall From Grace, the Garden of Eden, and all that was attempting to tell, in parable form.

Some think that all religions are wrong; could it not be that they are all, in some small part and insight, right, tracing a singular ray of light to the Creator? A light unfortunatley lost in the attempt to clutch it as absolute and unyielding truth for everyone.

Herman Hesse, I believe in his book "Demian," speaks of God as Abraxas, a God both good and evil; perhaps God would be the integration of all opposites-good and evil, male and female, right and wrong.
And, a great album, too, by Carlos Santana..............

Maternal Pantheism 20.Dec.2004 02:09

aranyboci

The Great Goddess or Divine Mother who is called Mother Nature. The Divine transcends singularity and multiplicity. She is as much a person or persons as she is any form or every form or place or action or non-being. The Divine can be seen as the Great Mother who gives birth to all and devours all. The Divine Mother is the mother of all things including the animate and inanimate, the stars and planets, the plants, animals and people and even the other Deities themselves. She is the primordial archetype that all things are born from. She is as beautiful to behold as she is terrible in her rage. She is the awe that is in sublime and the subtle. As primordial mother She has carved and shaped the evolution of all life on this planet. She is the mother that can give birth to existence, nourish those that she cares for, defend and destroy all. She has countless names and endless forms. She was called isis by the Hellenized Mediterranean peoples; Mahadevi, Durga, Aditi, Parvati in India; Cybele by the ancient Phrygians; Aphrodite in Cyprus; Freyja, Skadi, Frigga, Sif and many other Goddesses among the Rus or Norse; Ishtar or Innana in Mesopotamia; Yemaya by the Africans taken in slavery to South America; Xochiquetzel by the Aztecs in her lovely form and Coatilcue in her Earth form; Tsagagalal by the Wishram; Gyhldeptis who watches our forest by the Haida and the Tlingit; Papa by the Mauri; Dana, the Morrigu, Badb, Macha, Nemain and other countless names by the Keltic peoples; Tabiti in the Eurasian plains by the Scythians; Tara, Hadimba, Parvati and Kali in the Himalayas; Britomartis, Diktianna, Potnia Theron and Athana Potnia in the pre-Hellenic peoples of Crete; Athena Chalkiokos, Artemis Agroterra, Aphrodite Urania, Demeter 'Epia, Hera of Argos, Persephone Koura, Hestia Parthenos, Gaea Mater, Hekete Phosophoros and numerous other forms and names among the Hesiodic and Homeric Greeks; Anahita among the Parsi speakers of ancient Iran; Allet, Al-Uzza and Menet before Mohamad uttered his blasfamous decree; and She will be called many other countless names by our ancestors and descendants to come.

Maternal Pantheism comes from "maternal" meaning "of the mother" or "motherly" and Pantheism is the understanding that the Divine is in all things or all the Divinities are aspects of one Divinity... As a Maternal Pantheist I honor the Divine Mother who is in all and is all.

The Divine can be honored as the Great Mother who gives birth to all and devours all. The Divine Mother is the mother of all things including stars, planets, plants, animals, people and even other Deities. She is the primordial archetype that all things are born from. She is the Mother of all dichotomies. In the Divine is found the dark and the light, the chaotic and the order, the feminine and the masculine, and all other divisions. She is as beautiful to behold as she is terrible in her rage. She is the awe that is in sublime and the subtle. She is the myriad spiraling waves that are caught in flux between destruction and re-creation. Basically Maternal Pantheism is the honoring Mother Nature with a spiritual twist.

 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metroon_of_the_Goddess/
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/maternal_pantheism/

can't help but laugh 20.Dec.2004 09:43

shaker

Thanks, aranyboci. I didn't have time last night to type more than I did, just to question what reference the author was personally using for 'a lot.' What you relate above is very obvious, and sometimes very painlessly (to them) minimized by the achaeological studies, that the vast majority of creator ideas in antiquity were given female attributes. Actually, they were almost exclusively female attributes. The logic of those ancient peoples is pretty simple. What male has ever given birth? I won't get into the subject any further, as there is quite a bit of literature, conjectural and evidential, out there to keep a discussion like this going through millenia (which, by the way, the discussion has already) but we seem to misunderstand perspective, that there is no such thing as objectivity concerning human endeavors. If humanity were asexual, would there be such a discussion?Science be damned, it surely hasn't come up with anything to really contribute to the discussion, only muddle it further. Male, female? Good, evil? All ideas that stem from perspective, and generally immediate perspective. The world is not such a dichotomous place, even if our thinkers for the most part can't seem to get beyond that surface appearance of life. The day that we abandon that type of thinking, giving creation the attributes that we see on the surface and immerse ourselves into a spritual objectivity, not just reserving judgement, but denying that judgement has no real value beyond ourselves, it will the day we will really meet god. As it is, with our viewpoint, we'd likely find (he, she, it) a great bore. Hell, how would we keep ourselves entertained?

I think Santa Claus is an alien. 20.Dec.2004 11:16

clamydia

Look at his feet.

contrarily speaking 20.Dec.2004 12:28

devil dog

well....men give birth to war.

whew 20.Dec.2004 12:43

Bob

I think I gave birth to something this morning--damned black beans!

Re: contrarily speaking 20.Dec.2004 13:30

aranyboci

well.. I wish it was that easy to say. Many archetypical figures of war are female and specifically Goddesses.. like Athena, Bellona, Durga, Labutu, The Morrigu, Hild as well as the valkyries. When you read epic Keltic mythology such as the Táin Bó Cúalnge the epic hero Cuchulainn is trained by a female warrior teacher Scathach and the Goddess, the Morrigu, is his greatest rival (and teacher). If we look into archaeological records of Central Asia there is overwhelming evedive of women warriors in burial mounds. These warriors were buried with their weapons and their bodies show wounds that had healed during their lives (which suggest that they were not just buried with ceromonial weapons but actually fought and survived). Herodotus says that the great horse people the Scythians merged with the Amazons who were called Oeorpata or "men slayers" in their native language. The descendants of the Scythians and Oeorpata created became the Sauromatians who invaded the Middle East (a huge piece of history neglected by many scholars). The Saka (Scythians that invaded northern India) introduce the idea of the Divine being transgendered or "bi-gendered" in the form of Shiva Ardhanarisvara (a merger with "Proto-Shiva" found in the Dravidian culture that once occupied Mohenjo-daro and Harappa) possible based on their tradition of shamanism where the shaman transcends dichonomies (life-death, female-male, day-night, left-right, sacred-mundane).

So I would love to say "men" gave birth to war, but the reality is that it is a human thing in general, but shared with some other species like some ants and other primates. What seemed to be the true origin of our modern concept of an army is that moment when humans could have specialty "classes" that was not based on food gathering. Maybe war in the form of armies fighting armies product of the Neolithic revolution with settling of humans and the redistribution of labour. It is at that moment that humans create a "priest class" (as opposed to shamanism) and walled cities. Women still seen as a source of life and death, but eventually objectified and "owned" (like the partitioning of land with walls) and later during the Hellenic peroid women become the main source of labour in the form of weavers of flax for rope and clothing. I tend to think that we (as a species) have been suffering from one identity crises to the next since the Neolithic Age that led to over use of agriculture; over population; erosion with the introduction of grazing animals and then the collapse of the urban centers leading to walled cities and greater competition with other cities for trade. Once we passed this phase our species then had to deal with plagues, wars, enquistions, invasions, genocide, slavery and now nationalism (which is purely patriarchal and misgynistic), alienation by technology and now neo-nationalism or neo-imperialism in the face of mass environmental collapse (destruction of rainforests, global warming, genetic pollution by genetic engineering, mass extinction and the potential of superviruses). We are in deep shit of trouble and "yes I want my Momie" and I want Her to wipe out this arrogant group of shaved monkeys if they can not stop this self centered attack on Mother Nature and themselves or as Tool says in "Aenima":



Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will.
I sure could use a vacation from this

Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Fret for your figure and
Fret for your latte and
Fret for your hairpiece and
Fret for your lawsuit and
Fret for your prozac and
Fret for your pilot and
Fret for your contract and
Fret for your car.

It's a
Bullshit three ring circus sideshow of
Freaks

Here in this hopeless fucking hole we call LA
The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim, I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Some say a comet will fall from the sky.
Followed by meteor showers and tidal waves.
Followed by faultlines that cannot sit still.
Followed by millions of dumbfounded dipshits.

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will cuz
I sure could use a vacation from this

Silly shit, stupid shit...

One great big festering neon distraction,
I've a suggestion to keep you all occupied.

Learn to swim.

Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
Mom's comin' round to put it back the way it ought to be.

Learn to swim.

Fuck L Ron Hubbard and
Fuck all his clones.
Fuck all those gun-toting
Hip gangster wannabes.

Learn to swim.

Fuck retro anything.
Fuck your tattoos.
Fuck all you junkies and
Fuck your short memory.

Learn to swim.

Fuck smiley glad-hands
With hidden agendas.
Fuck these dysfunctional,
Insecure actresses.

Learn to swim.

Cuz I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way.
I wanna watch it all go down.
Mom please flush it all away.
I wanna watch it go right in and down.
I wanna watch it go right in.
Watch you flush it all away.

Time to bring it down again.
Don't just call me pessimist.
Try and read between the lines.

I can't imagine why you wouldn't
Welcome any change, my friend.

I wanna see it all come down.
suck it down.

Re: I think Santa Claus is an alien. 20.Dec.2004 14:14

aranyboci

interesting you brought up Santa Claus because that is the model or archetype I think most humans approach the Divine as. That some grandiose bearded father figure who grants wishes. "We" all want Santa to grant our wishes in exchange for good behavior, the right number of prayers or magical incantations or rituals or because that specific bearded old man likes "me" more than all the other hairless primates around me.

In Maternal Pantheism the Divine are archetypes .. a model or guide to be inspired from or take courage within or even a concept to share within a community with others. Mythology is not to be seen as literal, but as metaphor. I hesitate to say "worship" and would suggest the words like "to honor", "to revere" and "to respect". To me when I enter a forest it is a place of "worship" of the Goddess (though She is everywhere) and my "worshipping" of Her/Them is one of honoring all including my ancestors. The Santa Claus approach of "God" or even the Gods is a symptom of the human identity crises that goes back to those days of drought and starvation and those standing behind walled cities in the midst of siege. We need to restore reverence to the Divine (which encompasses all) without the blindness that plagues the male monotheists and their exclusiveness of a religious "boys" club.

So then 20.Dec.2004 15:23

clamydia

Do you think that the invention of the myth of Santa Claus was a deliberate attempt at getting kids to identify with a punishment/reward-based God as part of a societal indoctrination into Christianity? I mean, even atheist parents teach Santa Claus to children, which shapes their young, developing minds toward believing in a carrot-stick godhead, so even if the parents teach atheism, the christian seed is still planted. Don't forget about the capitalistic aspect of Santa Claus, either; all those toys aint free.

Re: So then.. the joyous fat guy archetype 20.Dec.2004 16:01

aranyboci

well the archetype of Santa or the fat jolly guy who gives out presents or happiness can be found in other cultures .. look at the Fat Buddha or elephant-headed Ganesha. I see this archetype as prefectly ok when its is not used by consumerism to manipulate the masses only to sell products out of a lack of true unselfish generousity.

Santa Claus comes out of maybe tradtions and ideas. Unfortunately the consumer gimick is the dominant one.

To break from the consumer grip on this jolly over weight archetype I would recommend that people especially parents read to their children the "The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus" by L. Frank Baum ( http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/aesop/aesoplfb.html). Baum's re-shaping of this archetype makes Santa a child of Mother Nature. He creates a Victorianized mythology (filled with Forest Deities) that sees industrialization as a harvester of great dispair. Claus is a joyous entity who help other animals and wishes to bring joy to the innocents. Baum's Santa Claus is more like a "Tom Bombadil" character that JRR Tolkien created (who by the way was cut from "the Lord of the Rings" movies). All ofcourse maybe reflected in the mythology of the Green Man as well.. though without too much detail of that archetype.

Deafening silence 20.Dec.2004 17:31

waiting for an argument

So, does anyone have any arguments alleging that God is female? Cause I sure haven't heard any on this thread yet, just people saying that she is. Until someone convinces me, I'm sticking with my belief that God has no physical form, and thus no gender.

re: response to contrarily speeking 20.Dec.2004 17:46

devil dog

aranyboci...thanks for your insight and research....I think I saw a program recently that briefly dealt with found remains of warrior women in burial mounds. As evidence of women prepared to engage in or perhaps initiate, war this seems irrefutable. As for archetypal woman figures of war...at this point, to me, they appear to be nothing more than that: creations of men who contrived to mobilize the sentiments and innocent honor of simpler minds to employ the use of violence, bloodshed and death in strategies designed to gain power over others. I'm not convinced, based on the most readily available information, that amazons militarily rose up for any other reason than complete contempt for their sexual counterparts tendency towards violence over co-operation as a means of supplying needs.

god? 20.Dec.2004 18:05

can't resist

not only has no one convinced me that god is female, no one has convinced me that there is a god.

maybe that's outside the scope of this thread, but i haven't seen any evidence that religion is benign or neutral, let alone beneficial, to practice.

well... 20.Dec.2004 18:51

the answer

...I'm god and I'm female. That's why I capitalize my first person pronoun.

that would explain a lot? 20.Dec.2004 19:33

Bird dog

Do you mean, because the world is so fucked up?

Santa Claus is 20.Dec.2004 20:14

a women

dont' know about God though....................

Re: Deafening silence 20.Dec.2004 21:19

aranyboci

well "argueing" or debating is such a typical view and approach by the antagonistic system we have inhereted.. a system the was modified by Hegel with the dioclectic. I perfer this as a dialogue with sharing of insights and thoughts. I do not need to convince you of a "god".. hell I do not believe that you can bottle the Divine and show it off the the universe. The Divine is simple having reverence... unfortunately as the status of women and nature was pushed aside for a hierarchal system that elevated males and a single male deity to the point of exclusion of anyone not in the "group" even rival parallel groups.

My claim that the Divine is within all and is all as well as that She is the Mother of all is one claiming we need a return of reverence to all especially Mother Nature.

Re: god? 20.Dec.2004 21:25

aranyboci

can't resist

No problem why do you need proof? ... I am talking of reverence of the other as opposed to worship of the pinnacle hierarchal structure be it "god" or "man".


by the way I avoid the masculine "god" because in English it sadly reflects two thousand years of oppression (not to say there was no oppression before) from Inquisitions, Witch trials and Crusades.

I bet you grew up with either extreme Christian parents or an atheistic family.

re: that would explain a lot? 20.Dec.2004 21:27

aranyboci

why the hatred of the feminine? does it scar you?

Hell yeah 20.Dec.2004 21:55

Colby

God is a woman and her name is Eris!

HAIL ERIS!!!!

Fnord.

imaginary figments 20.Dec.2004 22:01

faith no more

"well....men give birth to war."


and women give birth to men

and people give birth to comforting fictions

such as the oxymorin "afterlife"

you don't have to be a goddess-lovin pantheist 20.Dec.2004 22:40

to believe

that there is divine femininity. In Jewish practice, there are both male and femal aspects of god, and in the hebrew bible, god is referred to in the masculine and feminine form almost equal numbers of times.

just offering up some info.

simple 20.Dec.2004 22:42

devildog

There is no god unless you believe there is one. All proof is superficial, and of no signficance to one who believes so. I'm not actually a devildog. At least I hope not. Just joking on that point.

re: simple 21.Dec.2004 01:29

aranyboci

part of the problem in the study of religion is that its scholars often come from the "revealed religions" where "faith" or "belief" is a major factor. But many non-western or ancient religions of Eurasia the basic tenent is "action" in the form of ritual and ceromony or fulfillment of duty. For example Hinduism which was named by outsiders making contact with Indians named the religion based on the Indus river. A modern Hindu scholars might refer to their "religion" as Sanatana Dharma meaning the Eternal Laws or Eternal Actions or even closer Eternal Cause-and-Effect. The Western scientific and even antagonistic view of religion stems from dealling with the "revealed faiths" or Male Monotheistic religions which often sees duality in the form of physical versus spirit. The physical realm often has regulated to it things like Nature, feminine and the concept of "sin" (meaning the missing of the mark) or wrong doing. Where as the realm of "spirit" is associated with "god", pure man, angels, light and intellegect. Most of our concept of "purity" and "pollution" stem from these Male Monotheistic divisions even our "sanitized" approach towards micro-organisms stems from this idea of pollution or contamination. Sadly even those professing non religious affliations fall into the cultural perceptions that are rooted in the purity and pollution concepts of "revealed religions". So to claim "I do not believe in religion" outside of the Male Monotheistic traditions does not make much sense on multiple levels. Again "belief" or "faith" has little to do with non-revealed religions. And if you are a Westerner you are no matter what a product of your society which divides the world into purity or cleanilness versus pollution, dirt and contamination... unless you are so conscious of it that you walk a path knowing that you have this cultural "baggage".

re: you don't have to be a goddess-lovin pantheist 21.Dec.2004 02:15

aranyboci

it is true some sects within Judaism honored Shekinah, but generally Judaism is misogynistic especially the modern "orthodox" versions. I apologize if I offend you with that. There are huge exceptions in modern Israel and among modern Jewish feminists. An example of the hostility of the Feminine Divine in modern Jewish religious thought is Leonard Nimoy's photo series called "Shekinah". The imagry is of a Israeli woman often partically clothed and many times wearing traditional Jewish religious clothing or symbols. His protraits have been shunned by the religious "conservatives" and often when it makes a appearence in a city or town the poster of Shekinah often has that sacred nipples blurred or air-brushed out... after all the Divine can not have nipples I guess. Though this must be kept in mind that now image of the Divine can be shown and even the name of "the God" is often forbidden to utter and in many cases to write.

Your Scripture is my Death Sentence 21.Dec.2004 02:33

Ezekiel 4:12

"and in the hebrew bible, god is referred to in the masculine and feminine form almost equal numbers of times"

offer some EVIDENCE from the actual text - not your assertion....please?


2 Samuel 16:22
GOD is angry at David for having Uriah killed. As a punishment, he WILL HAVE DAVID'S WIVES RAPED by his neighbor while everyone else watches. It turns out that the "neighbor" that God sends to do his dirty work is David's own son, Absalom
 http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/2sam/16.html#22

Re: Your Scripture is my Death Sentence 21.Dec.2004 03:13

aranyboci

I am so glad i am not a Male Monotheist... they seem to love fighting over their trivial scriptures and pretend its all literal. Sorry for the arrogance, but I really hate limited worldviews that see the world in hierarchal structures and dualism. There is SO MUCH more to existence than being limited to a short sighted interpitation of a mythology. Again mythology is metaphor that can help one experience the world with thousands of years of the human "voice" or it is something to share and even laugh or cry about, but it should not be used to imprison one in limited views of existence.

simple is 21.Dec.2004 13:45

devildog

aranyboci...thanks again for all the very thought provoking historically referenced ideas. Though I'd be hard-pressed to say it with the same eloquence, much of what you say regarding the correlation of spirituality and humanity rings true.
Simple is. To those who choose to believe in god, one exists. Jesus too. Nothing really wrong with jesus except what the bible and a lot of self-serving followers have done to him. In fact, fundamentally, jesus is a fine example, except for the ventriloquistic way people have used him. Some of the things he's said to have said in particular contexts don't seem consistent with the fundamentally compassionate example. And of course there's the fact that "god" had to conjure him up as a man.
Know god if you will, but for many, I don't think it's advisable to allow the specifications and proofs, scriptures, etc., to define him. I really think most people don't need that stuff. Talk to god yourself. Works w-a-a-ay better. Cuts the bullshit out..(snap)...like that. If you want to think for yourself, do so...it's really possible. If you want to be a cow, there's plenty people around happy to herd you for their benefit.
Taking the personal initiative to lend credence to some higher source beyond one's self and other humans makes sense to me as a means of rising above limitations and exploring new realms of possibility. Many people may consider this idea a lot of nonsense. Many people, even though they may not know so, are able to make that distincition about this spiritual idea and any spiritual idea from other current or pre-existing spirtual and religious constructs. Lots of people who don't, can think and believe for themselves. In too many cases, it's because they don't seem to like doing so.
This entire back and forth conversation of this string (or whatever you call it) is probably lost on them completely.

re; simple is 21.Dec.2004 17:57

aranyboci

again I think you are missing my point. It is not about "believing in "god".. it is about reading the metaphors and archetypes of society and being about to say "hmm that is interesting" or "that is total crap, but hey that reflected the society it emerged from". I do not believe in "god", I do respect and in many cases honor the archetypes and metaphors that have shaped and has been shaped by the cultures that have contributed to who and what we are. But one of these archetypes has even shaped the evolution of life on this planet. And that archetype in the mother and specifically that bond between mother and child which shaped the evolution of mammalian life and all other life on this planet. This "sacred bond" is the basic unit of the societies we live in. Infact I would go as far as to say to "worship" or "submit" to one male archetype at the cost of diminishing the mother-child bond with imagry that is oppressive is the ultimate sacrilege. That pure misgynostic monotheism is a "crime" against all life and evolution. Be that monotheism Christianity, Islam, Jewish and to some extent Sikhism. This is not to say the old religions were egalitarian or supported human or animal rights. But it is to say that systems that neglect or even "demonize" Nature and the sacredness of the bond of the mother and child. The dominant approach to religion and even an antagonistic science can never truly heal and will always lead to more oppression and endemic silent violence such as in the form of lack of education or inadequate healthcare or racism or sexism or any of the other chauvanism that the naked ape can manifest. I request that all ponder the difference between worship and reverence or honor.

trying is being 21.Dec.2004 23:45

devildog

Well, you may be right. aranyboci, I may not exactly be seeing the point you're trying to make. I suppose I'd say that the points you've attempted to make about what I'd call humanities efforts to establish constructs of experience beyond the immediate, palpable world, ie. spirituality, myth, religion seem to ring true with my own outlook on things spiritual and the attempts by one or more individuals to gain supremacy over others. Maybe this isn't recognizing your point.
I'm really weak on research. I just want to say that over the years I think I've heard of at least some cultures and communities that functioned on co-operation rather than competition. Maybe some indigenous native people deep in the phillipines or such still do that. Other than that, for eons it seems civilizations have functioned on the principle of competion: I will take what you have by brute force of some form, because I need what you have, and because I can do it. People love to do things that way it seems. That's what I think patriarchal monotheism is all about. Maybe that's what organized theism of any kind is all about.
Organized faiths and religions around deities, gods and so forth seem to have their origins in the need to mobilize human power to address a crisis. I guess that's o.k. as a means of extinguishing a fire, staving off a plague, or bringing in the crops. The same takes on a far more ominous significance when it's used, as it invariably seems to be, in subordinating the presence of a companion community, individual, or groups in equal need.
The sacred mother/child bond is fine. It makes sense. But as an umbrella cosmological approach to todays society...well, I'll bet you most contemporary western men as a collective gender would say "piss on that....I'm the man in this family....I put bread on the table....we men will defend the land against savages, infidels, etc.". They'd say the mother/child bond idea is fine in it's place...on the backburner. Oh, women have accomplished extraordinary things throughout history, and continue to make inroads into the seats of power today, but I'm willing to bet it'll be a cold day in hell before hillary or condi gets even a whiff of the sickly white house as president.
You don't have to believe in god. No one does. It's optional. You're not going to hell if you don't....christians who say otherwise can just stick it...love you anyway. It's a matter of how we can all make the best of our lives for ourselves and for humanity. For me, there's something greater than the here and now. I sense a higher authority in a cosmological sense. Maybe that's bogus bullshit, but I like it, and that's the way I'm going to look at it for now. Recognizing archetypes and metaphors, even honoring them as appropriate is intelligent. It can give valuable, constructive perspective on the plight of humanity.
Monotheism seems to work extremely well for some people, so I guess that's the principle on which they should continue to live their lives. How christians can be so blissfully, euphorically happy believing the he-god with his he-jesus is the only way things can be made right for themselves and the world's people, continues to escape me. And hey look!, I like jesus in the simple, unadulterated, non-biblicised, non-jewish-christian, non-disciples conflicted concept of him. But no, that's not good enough for christians. Say you give your life to jesus, or you're out pal, you're not saved and we don't want anything to do with you.
Monotheism is just a myth anyway that holds no credence in a world that is
in continual global contact. Monotheism is just a myopic, self-serving viewpoint beneficial to those inclined towards bigotry. There has never really been monotheism and I hope there never will be.
Finally my apologies to all of you gnashing your teeth over this laborious
topic. I enjoyed the discourse and think I got something worthwhile out of it. I copied and saved some of the dialogue for later study. Sorry if I consistently seem to miss your point...thanks anyway.

Your Followers Condemn Me, Your Words Are Used To Enslave Me 22.Dec.2004 00:56

Confabulations 9:11-12

>>> "To those who choose to believe in god, one exists. Jesus too."


please accept this assertion on faith, noble reader!

Do not consider the epidimiology of religion (how it spreads in communities), the extraordinary spread of popular delusions throughout our history that have lead to wars for deity, destructions for deity, rape for deity, sexual oppression for deity, stonings for deity, genital mutilations for deity, the burning of witches, the refusal of the churches to install lightning rods ---- or any of the astonishing array of cruelties and stupidities inflicted in the name of deities and demons for which no evidence has ever been furnished.

Let's Pretend!

What use is religion:
 http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm


Welcome To Enlightenment! Religion--the tragedy of mankind:
 http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

___________________________
Santa Claus is one of the most famous IFOs (identified flying objects) in history. The hirsute gift giver with the levitating reindeer has had more sightings than all UFO, Bigfoot, and Virgin Mary sightings combined. The innocent and pure witnesses to the jolly one decked out in sartorial crimson flailing away at his flying reindeer are legion. Who can mistrust a child, much less billions of children? Surely these witnesses are reliable. There is no proof that they are suffering from any mental derangement. They have no motive for lying. The only plausible explanation for these sightings is that they are genuine. There is no reason to think that all these witnesses are confabulating. If there is nothing to this belief, then why do so many people believe it? There is no way this could be an example of communal reinforcement of a false idea or delusion. This must be a genuine vision.

Cynical skeptics are wont to note that the belief in the Christmas gift giver requires acceptance of the hypothesis that in a single evening the infrequent flyer visits all the homes in America and the homes of Americans everywhere else on Earth. Even if the speedy one spent a single second at each home and took no time to travel between homes, it would take him several years to complete his rounds. Obviously, a miracle happens every Christmas! That is the only logical explanation for flying reindeer traveling at takionic speed carrying hundreds of thousands of pounds of weightless presents. That is the only logical explanation. What else could it be?
 http://www.skepdic.com/santa.html
___________________________


Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth: break out the great teeth of the young lions, O LORD.
Let them melt away as waters which run continually: when he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, LET THEM BE AS CUT IN PIECES.
Psalms: 58:6-7

I wonder what the non-literal "post-modernist" readings is?
What did deity *really* mean?

re: trying is being 22.Dec.2004 04:22

aranyboci

Actually I think you got part of my points. Mythology which is everywhere in the human mind (if not even within other social animals' psyches) is there as a means to relate to our world and ideally not to enslave us in limitid thinking but as a collective guide from the thousands and thousands of voices that has led it to this point. Honoring an archetype is not the same as worshipping the peak of an heirarchal structure. Infact one might even say "worship" without choice is "slavery". That sacred bond between mother and child is a dialogue (though the West often portrays it as a monologue with the child as an object). In Hinduism there is an ancient concept (often neglected or even forgotten) called "vatsya" meaning "calf-love" it is the unconditional love between the mother cow and her calf. It is this concept that really is at the heart of a healthy society.. it is the primary unit and all other identities issues forth from that point on.

You are correct that under the present conditions most males if not most females would not give up the paradigm that is dominant in the modern world. The hierarchal approach specifially male centered thrives off of limited resources and fear. We are at a crucial time in our evolution where resourses are obviously seen as finite and were the illusion of an infinite population growth is still in the mindsets of the average human. But there are those historic moments in the past that humans have had that shift of consciousness. Unfortunately those moments often take major tragedy before the shift can take place. I think of Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism or even the recent cold war where finally both Americans and Soviets realized that an exchange of nuclear weapons was suicide for the whole species. We are a complex species and that cmplexity comes from a curse and blessing which is our ablity to try to communicate. If we humans are to survive then it will take that evolutionary marvel we call communication to get the message out that we need to do something different than what we have done for the last four thousand years. I personally believe that this change most be how we see eachother and our relationship with the rest of the life on this planet. If we continue seeing things in hierarchal structures and with exclusion of the other then we are doomed and I can only hope that the ants that evolve after our demise will find a way to be more holistic and inclusive of all.

St. Nick 23.Dec.2004 16:58

echo

Isn't Santa Claus a bastardized version of a couple different European figures, St. Nicholas and Kris Kringle? And isn't the Santa Claus we envision today (hirsute, red and black suit with the cute hat and big belly) actually created by Coca Cola long before any person commenting here was born?

This is just something i've heard before (the coca cola/santa connection).

Yes indeed...it makes you wonder who created the other images people associate with god, reverence, jesus, buddha...whatever.

Santa 23.Dec.2004 19:12

aranyboi

yes the Santa character is a merger of many traditions all coming together to bring us "super sales" right before the birthday of Mithras.... ooops I mean Jesus.

god is a woman 22.Sep.2005 11:25

eric white portland captstickybeard@hotmail.com captstickybeard@htomail.com

ive been trying to convince pepole for years that god is a woman,which is part of the reason i write fnord on everything

Heathen Arrogance 02.Jan.2007 09:51

humanity

What is up with you people? Especially aranyboci. What is it that you Heathens find so threatening about Christianity? What we believe, or don't believe, concerning God, has no bearing on His existence. Ooops..... I said "His". How chauvinistic of me! God, as we Christians see Him, is not a physical being who is subject to the laws of this universe. That's why He sees all things in the present.

Why then, do I refer to God as "He"? In other religions, humanity is reaching out to a god, so it's logical that this god could be female. In Christianity, God reaches out to humanity. While all humans are born of the female, the male is seen as the giver of that life. The male gives, while the female receives. This is the relationship between God and humanity. God gives life, we receive life. God gives eternal life, we receive eternal life, if we will only accept it. Humanity is the female counterpart in our relationship to God. This is simply a good way for us to understand our relationship to God. In the same way, we Christians believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, sees His Church as His Bride.

I am always amazed by the habit of Pagans to feel a kinship with Hindus. Hinduism is not logical, by any stretch of the imagination. If Darwin was right, as most of you people believe, how can you help but laugh at a Hindu? Shouldn't they have evolved to a higher level than the rest of us? Why does this religion originate in the poorest, most disease ridden land on the face of the Earth? You can talk all you want about the way the Christianized European and American peoples have no concern for the environment, but have you taken a peek into the rivers of India, China, Japan, or Africa lately? The simple fact is that we so-called Judeo-Christian countries actually produce a much more "enlightened" populace than that produced by any country dominated by any other religion. It's something for you to think about!