Half a religion?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 18 May 2003, and now archived in the Forum Library.

cricket	18 May 2003
*disclaimer: this is not meant to cause tempers to flare or to put down any sort of beliefs. It's just another rambling from the mind of the bug.* Call it what you like, but I had one of those flashes of sheer brilliancethat only hit at three in the morning while in a strange place after a long day on the road when you can't get to sleep and the mind starts wandering. It hit me that Christianity is only half a religion. Hold the calls of blasphemy! There's actually some semblance of coherent thought behind the idea. We've all heard that Jesus and the disciples were sent out to teach the word of God. We all know that the campaign was more or less a success, even if the actual word of God has been twisted so much that it's something completely different now than what it would have been originally. (If you doubt this, pick up a couple of different versions of the Bible.) We also know, or would if we were to think about it, that what Jesus and the disciples taught is/was actually very similar to the more prominent 'male side' of pagan teachings. Given that, let's suppose. Let's suppose that there were two people sent out to teach - Jesus and a woman. Jesus was sent out to teach God's word and succeeded. The woman was sent out to teach the Goddess's word and failed. Why did she fail? Nobody knows. Maybe she was killed, or ignored. Either one is a good possibility, given the political climes of the times. Maybe there are/were even references to her in the Bible that were/are being written out. Wouldn't it make people uncomfortable to start to think their religion isn't all there? It sure woudn't make me feel too secure. Who was this second person? Where was she supposed to go, or where did she go and find herself ignored? WAS she ignored? Maybe she went somewhere and found people that listened, people who spread the word of the Goddess. Is it a possibility that the political officianados in the area were able to wipe out the pocket of people that followed the Goddess? The Romans (among others) tried to get rid of all the Christians, so what would stop them from doing the same to the Goddess's followers? If they were all killed, there wouldn't have been anybody to make a record of it. Maybe the ones that got rid of them all kept a record and it got lost in the shuffle. Either way, there would be no written word of the Goddess to follow, like the Bible. All knowledge of these people would be lost in history somewhere. Does any of this make sense? Any comments? Am I just talking out my rear end here? Let me know what you think, please.

divinerguy	18 May 2003
Hmm, no Madonna in your theory. I got it, there's a Padonna.

Astraea	19 May 2003
Some of the Gnostic Christian sects -- who were/are viewed with disdain by mainstream Christians -- saw Mary Magdelene as the female counterpart of Jesus, and there is a school of thought that says she and Jesus were married and had a family, and that their bloodline is still active in the world. So, no, you're not talking out of your, er, nether end -- far from it!

Belladonna	19 May 2003
But "she" did not fail! The word of the Goddess reached me!!!

lunalafey	19 May 2003
makes sense to me. think, Zues & Io, or how about Father Time & Mother Nature. the Native American refer to Grandfather & Grandmother.

cjtarot	19 May 2003
ORRR, Jesus and the apostles teachings were about his Spiritual Mother, the Goddess (The Holy Spirit) and his father God, but when the MALE POPES (and male dominated societies where the apostles were sent to teach) got ahold of the original text, they wiped out the female so they would be able to justify their actions against women. I have heard (rumor) that the first popes DID alter the text of the Bible. HMMM I think it's wishful thinking on my part..but ya neverrr know.. CJ

jamesriouxctm	19 May 2003
Hello all, I just wanted to point out that the early Hebrews had no illusions about the dual (male/female) nature of God. The Hebrew word used to describe God in the book of Genesis is "Elohim", which is remarkable because the root word "Eloh" is a feminine noun, but the suffix "-im" is only used for masculine nouns. (Feminine words get the suffix "-oht" instead.) The word to describe God contains both genders because God contains both genders. We just use the pronoun "Him" because English does not have a third-person gender-neutral personal pronoun. So it's not that this bit of knowledge failed to be introduced, but it was deliberately obscured in later generations. But it was not erased entirely even from modern Bibles - vestiges of the God which contains both male and female still remain. Take a look at Genesis 1:26-27, for example (emphases mine): God said, Let us make mankind in our image and likeness... God created man in his image. In the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them. The plural pronouns were in the original text because the word Elohim is plural, containing both male and female, one and many. This notwithstanding, I do agree that in many ways Christianity is less than a complete religion. A religion, according to the original meaning of the word, is supposed to be something that brings people together in fellowship and harmony. The modern church often does just the opposite, driving people apart with bigotry and hatred and a refusal to let go of customs that have long been rendered meaningless and obsolete.

Astraea	19 May 2003
There is also the belief, held by many (including the theosophists), that the Holy Spirit is the feminine half of God; an allied understanding is that the Shekinah of Hebrew lore is God's feminine aspect. And I agree with Belladonna -- she did not fail! She represents the more internalized, heart-centered nature of God; Jehovah expresses the extraverted, will-centered part of His being. Jesus' life, in the understanding of many Christians, united these two aspects of God (he referred to himself as a hen with chicks underwing). Since the feminine is contained in the masculine and the masculine in the feminine, there is always movement between the two poles, and it does seem that the more feminine elements of divinity are enjoying fuller expression nowadays, including within Christianity.

skytwig	19 May 2003
Well, it is possible that Jesus was a Reiki Healer. He was, after all, NOT a Christian, they didn't really exist until the 'church' defined it..... Mary participates with many Reiki healers, she is very much like Kuan Yin in her Presence. The difficulty with Christianity is human interpretation of it and humankinds' translation and re-translation of text materials. I once heard that the line, "and lead us not into temptation" from the Lord's Prayer, was originally written as LEAVE us not in temptation!!! Quite a radical difference in meaning! Christianity, as I experienced it in this lifetime, is highly Patriarchal. Submission, specifically WOMENS" SUBMISSION, is the favored word. I recently saw on In The Life, that this concept is increasing!!! I grew up with that, my parents taught it!!! And, they used it to wage all kinds of abuse on we siblings and many others. It is a subject I find extremely distasteful and even frightening.... Jesus's words, however, were very Tibetan and highly archetypal in his use of Story. Humankind is so obsessed with the concept of sin that it ignores his words of self-empowerment. He emphasized the old, old concept of I AM, which has no room for Patriarchy. Jesus and Mary are wondrous beings who, I believe, never intended the religion which misrepresents them today. I think the best way to find out what WAS intended is simply to dialogue with them, one on one...... :)

Moongold	19 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by jamesriouxctm This notwithstanding, I do agree that in many ways Christianity is less than a complete religion. A religion, according to the original meaning of the word, is supposed to be something that brings people together in fellowship and harmony. The modern church often does just the opposite, driving people apart with bigotry and hatred and a refusal to let go of customs that have long been rendered meaningless and obsolete. I rejected Catholicism at 16 for this very reason and hovered uneasily in the spaces of not knowing for many years. In my search I've discovered many Christians, including Catholics, who disregard parts of the organizational or political Church and who nurture and share a robust but caring spirituality of their own. They are in little communities everywhere. Somehow they manage the duality of living in a Church with such odd patriarchal customs. When I was a kid, Catholicism rarely alluded to the Bible which is such a rich text. I now find myself in the situation where I have to unlearn much of the prescriptive moral nonsense we learned as children. We had the catechism, not the Bible. I thought it had all been swept away but it's set in rock and will require a few explosives to shatter. I'm beginning to think :) I struggle with the gender issue as well, whilst knowing that it is a Church and social construct. There is an interesting translation of the Gospels by Stephen Mitchell (Harper, 1991) which is a joy to read. It comes enriched with Mitchell's estensive knowledge of Eastern mysticism.

cricket	20 May 2003
Eek! Looks like some people could have taken the beginning post the wrong way. It wasn't meant to pick on the male dominated religions, or to blame them, or to say that Christianity and it's history are at fault. It also wasn't meant to be sexist. It was just me tossing a couple of thoughts out and wondering if anybody had any thoughts on it. As for the messenger's failing, I meant failing in the mainstream of society. There are many little (and not-so-little) pockets of Goddess-based or dual deity religions. They just don't happen to be the main religions of many of the major societies of the day. If the messenger of the Goddess had failed completely, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. ;)

Moongold	20 May 2003
Threads have a life of their own, Cricket. Like conversations they can take unexpected turns and most of the time that is all right. It was an interesting discussion. Thank you.

cjtarot	20 May 2003
Cricket, Posts are ment to make us think...AND YOURS DID... Thank You.. CJ

skytwig	20 May 2003
Oh, Cricket, it was a very intriguing and thought provoking topic! You made me think and I still carry that thought in the 'rumination' center of my mind..... Christianity is such a controversial subject, but it is one that many of us have perspectives on. I find dialogue about it, especially here, where there are so many thinkers who are spiritualy alert. both interesting and educational. Please, keep up the interesting 'risk' of conversation! It is Grand! :laugh:

cricket	20 May 2003
Well. as long as it got people thinking, I did something right. :) Quote: I find dialogue about it, especially here, where there are so many thinkers who are spiritualy alert. both interesting and educational. skytwig, I agree with this wholly. This is such a wonderful place to toss around a few ideas and theories that some of us wouldn't dare bring up in everyday conversation. (Especially in this area. Sheesh! :D ) A lot of things like this have been floating around in my mind lately. Much of it stems from the rather harsh way the inlaws have been reacting to what I've been trying to teach my children. They're all Southern Baptist and do NOT agree with the pagan way at all. In fact, my mother-in-law once said something to the effect that if she knew of anybody in one of those "strange religions" like "Buddhists or Jews or anything like that" she would avoid them like the plague. She said she would even go so far as to move to get away from them. No, she's still not sure if I'm a "real Christian" or not. :) Anyway... Stuff like that is really starting to have an effect on everyday life for me and my family. It's brought a lot of questions to mind. Once they make a little sense to me they'll probably be brought here. Fair warning. --the conversational risk-taking bug

skytwig	20 May 2003
I was raised in a Christian Cult and, believe me, anything close to pagan, witchy or magical, was considered demonic. The prejudice that runs through many so-called Christian religions is absolutely frightening. It is a place of very narrow thinking. Extremely tight. Also very fear driven. I was actually scolded and ridiculed when my husband was dieing, for not believing he would be healed. My 'father' accused me of murdering my husband by saying the word terminal to him. Personally, from my own experience, I would respect that 'prejudice' in your in-laws. Even though witchcraft is more accepted today, it is still a hot topic in families. A grandmother who believes her grandchildren are being led to the Devil can be a force you may not want to contend with. Tiptoe around the subject. I am sooooo happy, however, to hear you are raising your children in the pagan way. Also, if you are interested in the Cosmic Christ, there are several people here at aeclectic who also study such a concept....... Look forward to further discussion. PS: Would be glad to help you understand the in-laws, if you need some hands on experience with the 'born again' thing. :) skytwig

Macavity	20 May 2003
I suspect evidence of the female side of the deity has always been rather supressed? I was reading that e.g. the original deity of the Hebrews - "El" (immortalised in Isra-El?) had (one or more) consort(s)... or even counterparts e.g. Ashera? One gets the impression that some attempts was then made to incorporate these into a single entity. Even IHVH, the God of the Jewish Kabballah seems to be (possibly) triune and even hermaphrodite? :) I understand some of the (older) old testament was rewritten to be based on a male Yaweh, much as the Greek Philosophers were incorporated into Christian ethos(?) in the middle ages? Macavity P.S. Ah yes, a one-time (operative phrase) dear friend of mine joined: www.5solas.org Scary! I was "dismissed" for liking Egyptian mythology and being an "evolutionist"... :(

cricket	20 May 2003
Oh, believe me, it's a subject that does NOT come up. Period. When they start going off on one of their preaching tangents I simply take the kids somewhere else to play. It just bothers me that - even though I don't push anything on anybody - they refuse to let me teach my own children as I see fit. It would be different, I think, if it were something that concerns saying "well gee, Christianity and everything all these people are saying is just a crock of bunk. They're all wrong, I'm all right, and they're just trying to corrupt you." That would be just plain wrong and would limit their growth. The point is that I'm trying to incorporate what they're being taught in church with what I'm teaching them at home. They learn the masculine aspects through the church, the feminine aspects here with me and when we do things outside the home - like when we go camping, take walks, go fishing at the pond, or whatever. It just cuts the legs out from underneath me when they finally learn something and the inlaws tell them it's not true.

DeLani	21 May 2003
Cricket, I have to ask: why are you sending your children to a church if you want to teach them the Pagan way? I understand respecting your in-law's beliefs, but no one has any power to make you send your kids to any church you don't want to. On the topic at hand, I agree totally with the half-a-religion concept. I believe that Jesus did have female disciples, Mary Magdalene being the most prominent. His actions seemed to be very feminist for the time & culture he was in. The early churches were gatherings in peoples houses, lead as often as not by women. It wasn't until the Catholic Church took over that any mention of feminine power was erased. In fact, the one thing that made a sect "heretical" above all else, was if they allowed women to lead services! Just goes to show that every aspect of the Inquisition from the very beginning was about putting women in "their place." I just saw a special on Sci Fi about evil, where they talked about the Burning times. While it was a very good, fairly accurate show, I am upset about how whenever the burning times are talked about, they always refer to the ones being tortured as "him" and show re-enactments with men being tortured or burned. While I'm certainly not for torturing or burning anybody, I wish they would show and say "women!" I think people would be more disgusted or outraged to see women being brutalized like that. And after all, it was 80 - 90% women who were the victims. OK, I'll stop ranting now!

cricket	21 May 2003
DeLani, you bring up some very good points about the inquisition and the changing of the church. Reading the posts here have answered a lot of questions I didn't even know I had. As to sending the kids to church: THAT started just to get them out of the house, letting me have peace and quiet. :| It's also a base to start from. It's where I got my start in thinking about spiritual matters. It wasn't a baptist church, it was catholic, but they're actually fairly similar (from what little I can remember). Many of the lessons taught in children's sunday school are either the same or very similar to what I would try to teach them at home. They're just lacking the feminine aspect that should be there. It also might help for them to know that they're not the only ones being taught these stories and lessons. They might be the only ones that are being taught to question them, but not the only ones learning the stories themselves.

truthsayer	21 May 2003
cricket, while i realize it is extremely scarey to allow your children to be influenced by your in-laws, as long as you are teaching them the other side of spirituality, they are getting a more balanced view. if you kept your children away from them b/c you disagreed with their beliefs it may actually draw them more into christianity--the old moth to a flame theory. the same true with your in-laws-the more they talk against your beliefs, the stronger your children may question southern baptists ideas. knowing some about churchianity may also help your children deal with peer pressure, socialization, and important concepts that seem to have little to do with religion. for example, how much american government is influenced by christianity. understanding the workings of the church along with pagan ideals may come out in their minds by the time they are adults in ways you would never dream. i have a good friend who raised her 3 children to be liberal free thinkers and unitarians. 2 of them followed how she brought them up. one has become a member of a fundamentalist baptist sect that probably rivals the amish in conservatism and rejections of modern ideas. she never would have guessed her daughter would have such a polar reaction to what she was taught. i have one friend who was raised to be fundamentalist southern baptist but converted to judaism when she married a jewish man. to say the least, her parents were horrified. my mother is pagan and my father southern baptist(they're divorced now). my siblings and I thus far are either agnostic or pagan. who could have guessed? dad has been trying to convert all of us for the past 20+ years and only drove a spike deeper between us. i'll go to church with him occasionally. afterall, it's always good to keep up with what the opposition is up to. plus it's a way of showing my father and stepmother that i do respect their beliefs. it doesn't take a lot of time and it's good to learn from all types of spirituality. i don't tell them about my beliefs in particular b/c i know they would not respect them and there's no real reason to fight about it. whether or not your in-laws are aware of it, what your children end up believing by the time they reach adulthood is anyone's guess. they will also be greatly impacted by the peer groups they hang out with when they are teens/young adults. choice of mate will also have a bearing on them. all you can do is guide your kids. it is up to them to make the individual choices.

The Half a religion? thread was originally posted on 18 May 2003 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.