|
Post by Madria(priestess)sophiaruth on Jun 20, 2018 1:22:42 GMT
Hello folks, Hello Rebekah, a heartfelt welcome back.
Myself, I do not regard the dualism of Spirit and matter to be linked with the gender of humans. Especially as Sorella Rose suggests in the future there maybe more than the present 5 genders.
The dualism of spirit and matter are as far as I am concerned the prime elements of material realms. A process of manifestation.
God being viewed as feminine or masculine is merely the way that the finite brain of a human can relate to God. God is neither a human not a child bearing mammal. Again, it is just the way that humans honour the creative ability of a female human and project this upon God.
Honestly, no human no matter their spiritual position of authority will ever be able to prove the gender or non gender of God. All we can say, is that as an individual we will form with our finite brain some concepts of how we perceive God.
Myself, I regard all human genders originating as Divine principles from God. We are all children of God. I believe that human spirit and soul are genderless or matches the incarnated gender.
I do not believe in Original Sin. I do not believe in a Perfectly Good, Wise, Eternal God dying. I do not believe in the decline of the ages. I am suspicious of the mechanism of fate and the inevitability of it and the victim as deserving of their fate. I am suspicious of hierarchies preferring a meritocracy. I believe in Sorella Clara's term & definition of thamelic essentialist - living in harmony with the Geniae/Janae virtues (that thamë is the original and most natural state of the universe and all beings in it).
I have a heart need in this present incarnation to perceive God as Mother.
May Déa bless you. Blessed is She. Madria Sophia
|
|
|
Rayati
Jun 20, 2018 18:23:42 GMT
Post by Admin on Jun 20, 2018 18:23:42 GMT
Sophia Ruth, I totally agree with you that there is absolutely no way in which human beings can determine with any absolute certainty that God is either male / masculine, female / feminine or without gender at all. In my own religious evolution in my late teenage years I came to the conclusion that God was gender-less and certainly not a male in any human sense. Latter after being introduced to Feminist theology and Goddess theology I gradually became very attracted to the image of God as Goddess, Lady and Queen, but I also felt that She was made up of both the male and female genders on a purely intellectual basis. Now I do not know exactly how I feel about this. I only worship God as Dea but I do believe that she can legitimately be viewed a masculine by those who can only accept her that way. I sometimes think of her as a great Jewel or Diamond who can choose how she will be revealed. To some she reveals herself as Dea, Lady, Queen, and Mother. To others she is seen as Lord as either Yahwah, Vishnu or Shiva. I certainly think at least that the Deanic thealogy of the Dark Mother teaches a doctrine similar to this. Yes she is called the Dark Mother but she is in fact totally unknowable, dark, and thus holds all aspects of reality within herself including both that of male and female. As the Dark Mother she is both pre-gender and beyond gender, and all qualities and attributes.
I also very much like what you said about both hierarchy and the issue of whether the ages or matter is in a process of inevitable decline. Well I accept the idea that some degrees of hierarchy are necessary to society on the whole I prefer systems of equality when it is possible. I believe that systems of mandatory authority and obedience almost enviably become oppressive. I also have a really hard time with the doctrine that Manifestation is simply the result of a big cosmic mistake,even in spite of the sufferings which are built within it. I would much more prefer to believe that this World, this Manifestation is the creation of a Good and Loving God who wishes it to exist and grow in beauty and in grace. If this in deed is the case than the hope for a transformed Kingdom of God or an Empire of Dea make more sense than to doctrine of the inevitable decline of matter and of positive human endeaver. Anyway these are some of my thoughts on the subject. Thanks for the great post.
Glenn.
|
|
|
Rayati
Jun 21, 2018 4:35:46 GMT
Post by River S on Jun 21, 2018 4:35:46 GMT
I am unable to get the quote function to work correctly, so I'm sorry it's all split up like this.
I did explain why it was this way. Patriarchal monotheistic religion favours men. Men are the clergy, men are the heads of households, men are the heirs, holders of property. Women are none of those things. Since these religions see women as belonging in the home rearing children, these religions say "women are stronger spiritually" so that they can just pray off the cuff in their house while they chase around a passel of toddlers. If women are better spiritually, then they don't NEED to go to the mosque, or the synagogue, or the church as regularly as the men do. Because, in these religions, men are 'spiritually inferior', that is why they have to go to the houses of worship and study more, because that's enlightening them.
That is literally what is going on in all three of the major monotheistic religions in varying degrees across all the differing branches and sects. Women in Christian movements like Quiverfull live these lives, shut up in homes, with no access to education, satisfying careers, or free travel without a male relative, because they are supposed to be having as many children as they can to fight evil with. They cannot be in positions of religious authority because they need to be having kids. So they are told to be prayer warriors in the safety of their homes, that the best religious thing they can do is rear as many Christian children as possible. Thus they are 'spiritually superior' to their husbands, who need to grow and become leaders, get educated, spend time in the church learning the faith. I really doubt you've never heard these arguments; maybe you've never thought about it this way.
You have said that you do not wish to hold positions of authority. As I quoted of you in my last reply:
You are saying that women should hold the positions of authority, not men. You are saying that you "can be happy without holding a position of authority." What about other men though? You say "it may be difficult for an ambitious man to adjust to" but are implying that they should. So you are saying - since you can be happy, why not all the other men? Without asking any other men, one of which is in this thread, what they think about it. Asking if they are fine with never holding an authority position. My point then is that I would never say "I can be happy without a college education. It may be difficult for an ambitious woman to adjust to, but they should just get used to it" without ever asking what other women think about it. What other women want to do with their lives. Whether they think college is important or not. And then valuing their responses, instead of just saying "but this is a SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLE! This is the way things ARE!" It requires being able to change your opinion.
Being able to hold a higher position because of your drive, your ambition, you ability, should not depend on your gender. If you are capable and willing, you should be able to go for it without being held back because of your sex. It's nonsense, and saying 'oh but it's a religious principle' without asking if others agree with you is also nonsense.
The point about it being juvenile is that immature people think this way. If there is something they don't like, then they naturally assume other people wouldn't like it either. If there's something they like, they assume other people would be fine with it too, without thinking about whether those people would have different lives that influence whether this is a good thing for them too. This is the point behind having intersectional feminism. Something may be great for a straight, white person in an affluent middle class neighbourhood. But that same thing may hurt people of different backgrounds. Unless you've gotten out into the world and learned to look at something from many different angles, you wouldn't be aware that it's hurting others because it's good for you. Or you'd think that there's something wrong with them if they can't handle it, since obviously you and everyone you know is doing fine. That's juvenile, immature thinking.
|
|
|
Rayati
Jun 21, 2018 4:41:35 GMT
Post by River S on Jun 21, 2018 4:41:35 GMT
And hey, there's a second page! I didn't realize that when I made my initial reply.
Love what you've said on the subject, Sophia Ruth. Especially the points on that we cannot know, that what we say and teach is but our limited view of eternal things beyond our ken. You've said it better than I ever could!
|
|
|
Rayati
Jun 21, 2018 17:03:31 GMT
Post by david on Jun 21, 2018 17:03:31 GMT
The belief that God cannot be a woman or a child involves seeing the material level as being the primal principle, and the Spirit as being derived from it, that femininity results from material women and is reflected onto God, Who becomes a woman. It is the other way round. The Spirit is the primal principle. The ability of woman to give birth rerflects the Divine act of Creation.
May She be with you,
David.
|
|
|
Rayati
Jun 22, 2018 17:52:11 GMT
Post by david on Jun 22, 2018 17:52:11 GMT
I am unable to get the quote function to work correctly, so I'm sorry it's all split up like this. I did explain why it was this way. Patriarchal monotheistic religion favours men. Men are the clergy, men are the heads of households, men are the heirs, holders of property. Women are none of those things. Since these religions see women as belonging in the home rearing children, these religions say "women are stronger spiritually" so that they can just pray off the cuff in their house while they chase around a passel of toddlers. If women are better spiritually, then they don't NEED to go to the mosque, or the synagogue, or the church as regularly as the men do. Because, in these religions, men are 'spiritually inferior', that is why they have to go to the houses of worship and study more, because that's enlightening them. That is literally what is going on in all three of the major monotheistic religions in varying degrees across all the differing branches and sects. Women in Christian movements like Quiverfull live these lives, shut up in homes, with no access to education, satisfying careers, or free travel without a male relative, because they are supposed to be having as many children as they can to fight evil with. They cannot be in positions of religious authority because they need to be having kids. So they are told to be prayer warriors in the safety of their homes, that the best religious thing they can do is rear as many Christian children as possible. Thus they are 'spiritually superior' to their husbands, who need to grow and become leaders, get educated, spend time in the church learning the faith. I really doubt you've never heard these arguments; maybe you've never thought about it this way. You have said that you do not wish to hold positions of authority. As I quoted of you in my last reply: You are saying that women should hold the positions of authority, not men. You are saying that you "can be happy without holding a position of authority." What about other men though? You say "it may be difficult for an ambitious man to adjust to" but are implying that they should. So you are saying - since you can be happy, why not all the other men? Without asking any other men, one of which is in this thread, what they think about it. Asking if they are fine with never holding an authority position. My point then is that I would never say "I can be happy without a college education. It may be difficult for an ambitious woman to adjust to, but they should just get used to it" without ever asking what other women think about it. What other women want to do with their lives. Whether they think college is important or not. And then valuing their responses, instead of just saying "but this is a SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLE! This is the way things ARE!" It requires being able to change your opinion. Being able to hold a higher position because of your drive, your ambition, you ability, should not depend on your gender. If you are capable and willing, you should be able to go for it without being held back because of your sex. It's nonsense, and saying 'oh but it's a religious principle' without asking if others agree with you is also nonsense. The point about it being juvenile is that immature people think this way. If there is something they don't like, then they naturally assume other people wouldn't like it either. If there's something they like, they assume other people would be fine with it too, without thinking about whether those people would have different lives that influence whether this is a good thing for them too. This is the point behind having intersectional feminism. Something may be great for a straight, white person in an affluent middle class neighbourhood. But that same thing may hurt people of different backgrounds. Unless you've gotten out into the world and learned to look at something from many different angles, you wouldn't be aware that it's hurting others because it's good for you. Or you'd think that there's something wrong with them if they can't handle it, since obviously you and everyone you know is doing fine. That's juvenile, immature thinking.
River S,
I explained in my last post why the argument that the superiority women is the cause of their oppression is illogical. You have not added to it, or found any fault in my assertion that the illogicality of it is too obvious. I will say further that if the argument you cite is true, the best men would not be ordained, but mediocrities woild be preferred. Further, it implies that we pray better at home than in church. If this is true for women, it is true for men, and men would not go to church. Clerics don't want to drive their congregations away. People do want positions filled by those best suited for them, because they regard them as important. If they really believed women to be superior, they would want to be ruled by women.
You say this argument is so prevalent, you cannot believe I have not heard it. I have heard the contrary argument, that women are not logical, and you can't reason with them becuase they are too emotional. This is a more persuasive argument for keeping them out of positions of authority than arguing that they are too good. I have also read in The Arabian Nights that women are deficint in religion.
If the argument is so prevalent, all the members of this forum will be familiar with it. If anyone wishes to join this debate, it is simportant that you have heard, not just that women are superior, but that they should be barred from authority and confined to their homes because of it. It is also relevant to know if you have heard the contrery argument, that women are not logical.
You persist in saying I claim to speak for other men on the grounds that there are some men who don't like women in authority. I have never said that my opinions are the opinions of other men. I have merely stated my own. I am entitled to do this. It is a fact of life that there are men with these attitudes. You justify this by saying that you don't say that women should be happy without a college education. This is to imply that I have said men should be happy without one also. You never quoted this remark. You can't, because I never said it.
youy say that people should not just say "but it's a spiritual principle." Well, they should not just say that. They should explain why it is a spiritual principle, which I have done. This remark makes me think that you don't believe any spiritual principles are valid, and they should be disregarded. Are you an Atheist, and do I have to go to basics and prove the existence of God?
At this point, I think it is important to explain the objective of Lux Madriana. People who perform rituals do so for the duration of about an hour, once a month or once a week, and performed by just a few people. That is enough to give them a spiritual uplift The Madrian objective is to make the whole of life a ritual, from getting out of bed to getting back into bed at night, for every day of your life, performed by every single person in the world. This requires that the whole of life is based on spiritual principles. It requires that everybody be dedicated to spiritual development, and spiritual factors cannot be compromised by worldly considerations. Ambition is a worldly factor.
You still insist on calling me juvenile. I don't need to use personali issues to justify what i believe. They stand on their merits.
David.
|
|
|
Rayati
Jun 27, 2018 15:47:23 GMT
Post by River S on Jun 27, 2018 15:47:23 GMT
River S,
I explained in my last post why the argument that the superiority women is the cause of their oppression is illogical. You have not added to it, or found any fault in my assertion that the illogicality of it is too obvious. I will say further that if the argument you cite is true, the best men would not be ordained, but mediocrities woild be preferred. Further, it implies that we pray better at home than in church. If this is true for women, it is true for men, and men would not go to church. Clerics don't want to drive their congregations away. People do want positions filled by those best suited for them, because they regard them as important. If they really believed women to be superior, they would want to be ruled by women.
You say this argument is so prevalent, you cannot believe I have not heard it. I have heard the contrary argument, that women are not logical, and you can't reason with them becuase they are too emotional. This is a more persuasive argument for keeping them out of positions of authority than arguing that they are too good. I have also read in The Arabian Nights that women are deficint in religion.
If the argument is so prevalent, all the members of this forum will be familiar with it. If anyone wishes to join this debate, it is simportant that you have heard, not just that women are superior, but that they should be barred from authority and confined to their homes because of it. It is also relevant to know if you have heard the contrery argument, that women are not logical.
You persist in saying I claim to speak for other men on the grounds that there are some men who don't like women in authority. I have never said that my opinions are the opinions of other men. I have merely stated my own. I am entitled to do this. It is a fact of life that there are men with these attitudes. You justify this by saying that you don't say that women should be happy without a college education. This is to imply that I have said men should be happy without one also. You never quoted this remark. You can't, because I never said it.
youy say that people should not just say "but it's a spiritual principle." Well, they should not just say that. They should explain why it is a spiritual principle, which I have done. This remark makes me think that you don't believe any spiritual principles are valid, and they should be disregarded. Are you an Atheist, and do I have to go to basics and prove the existence of God?
At this point, I think it is important to explain the objective of Lux Madriana. People who perform rituals do so for the duration of about an hour, once a month or once a week, and performed by just a few people. That is enough to give them a spiritual uplift The Madrian objective is to make the whole of life a ritual, from getting out of bed to getting back into bed at night, for every day of your life, performed by every single person in the world. This requires that the whole of life is based on spiritual principles. It requires that everybody be dedicated to spiritual development, and spiritual factors cannot be compromised by worldly considerations. Ambition is a worldly factor.
You still insist on calling me juvenile. I don't need to use personali issues to justify what i believe. They stand on their merits.
David.
………………………………………………………..I am beginning to wonder if you are fully mentally capable. Because you don't seem to understand that I was using simile in comparing males giving up authority and women giving up college education. Buddy, this is the most basic thing in the world. And this is just literally ridiculous. If you actually read anything I wrote, you would have at least understood what I was saying, even if you didn't agree with it. Which is at least what I have done for you. I want you to know that you are giving your faith a very bad name. I want nothing to do with Madrianism, and haven't for a very long while, all because of your behaviour. I'm going to have to be like others in this community and just ignore you. Which is sad. But you honestly cannot stand to be in a conversation with others. It's just you shouting about your beliefs and everyone else is always wrong. You can take your self-importance and your beliefs somewhere else. I'm done.
|
|
|
Rayati
Jul 1, 2018 12:12:57 GMT
Post by Admin on Jul 1, 2018 12:12:57 GMT
David when I had my most contact with fundamentalist Christians in the early 80's and of course in my teenage years, generally the rules that women had to submit themselves to their husbands and that they could not speak in Church were simply accepted without much question. These rules were accepted because they were codified within the Bible and no other justification was needed. However when more logical justifications were desired by individuals, the primary argument would be that God gave differing and complementary roles to women and men. Women had the role of obedience and submission and man the right of authority. Again these roles were unquestioned. However in spite of the unequal roles given to men and women , these fundamentalist Christians tended to give lip service to the idea that both men and women were equal. This was no doubt because they understood how negative it would look for them to openly argue the women were unequal in the sight of God. I however do need to make a qualification to this. For example in spite of the fact that my mother for instance believed fully in the headship of the man, in reality, within our family,the relationship between my parents were fairly egalitarian. My mother and father worked things out often after a lot of discussion and arguing. A lot of compromise was involved. I suspect a lot of Christian families did and still do the same. Many others I am sure do not.
Now over the years I have come to know quite a bit about the dominant Christian attitude toward women. I have always had a particular fascination for Medieval history and for the history of Christianity in general. In general during the Medieval and early Christian centuries the Church tended to argue that women were weaker spiritually than were men. Women tended toward the sins of the flesh and toward vanity, and more carnal sins. Men were considered more reasonable, intellectual and spiritual in nature. Women were more directed toward the earth and materiality, while men were more directed toward the higher intellectual virtues. This was all in accordance with classical authors such as Aristotle and the great Christian writers such as Saint Augustine. All of this of course was used to justify the monopoly that men held over the Church.
However, after the Protestant Reformation and particularly during the Victorian Era of the 19th Century in both the United States and Great Britain that idea was in general dropped. During this time of the development of modern industrial capitalism, men increasingly lost interest in the affairs of religion and increasingly became absorbed the pursuit of the wealth, power, and material goods produced by industrial capitalism. Thus while men gradually lost interests in the affairs of traditional religion they valued the fact that women in general tended to stay more loyal to it. They also valued that what family stability and home life that they did have came from women. So the dominant ideas of women changed. Women were now seen as being the providers of the gentler, more refined virtues of domestic, family life. Women were seen as the carriers of the gentler virtues of gentleness, love, compassion, care, etc. They logically were to play no part in the competition and struggles for power and wealth in the ordinary life in which men were to rule. Women were put onto pedestal and were to be kept out of the public life which was supposedly not suited for them.
During this time period it was the women, who increasingly were seen as being the working backbone of the Churches, who were to provide the services of nursing, helping, and charitable care for the poor. And of course all of these things, were simply a natural extension of the skills of the domestic, familial sphere put to the use of society as a whole. And the Victorian gentlemen were very pleased with this arrangement because it freed them to engage in the cutthroat competition which they viewed to be the real basis of social darwinist civilization. All the rest was decoration.
Now I am not too familiar with the kinds of arguments which Rebekah says are commonly used to justify the subordination of women within the Churches. However Christianity have hundreds of differing denominations most containing at least tens or hundreds of thousands of members. It would not surprise me if within many of the more fundamentalist of these. particularly those with charismatic backgrounds that the use the idea of female superiority is used to justify women's delegation to the domestic sphere. After all an argument might be made that if one is by nature spiritually superior, one might no need to be involved within all of the duties needed to stay in tune spiritually of those like myself of lesser innate spirituality. I have certainly heard some Christians state that they do not need times for special disciplined prayer. They just pray when the spirit moves them. And evidently the spirit moves them constantly they say. They do not have to work at it as do us lesser mortals. This seems to hint at arguments on the line of those Rebekah is familiar with. I also know of at least two women who affirmed their Jewish roots,who were earlier associated with Deanism who argued that Judaism was not patriarchal. They argued that Jewish women within Orthodox Judaism were not required to follow rules such as Torah study and many of the other rules that were required of men because they were seen within Judaism as spiritually superior. I am fairly certain that these women did not make all this up themselves. It certainly seems to come out of a tradition of which Rebekah might be familiar. Since I am not Jewish my knowledge of these kinds of arguments used within that religion is very limited. It might be helpful if Rebekah at some time would discribe some of the groups from within Judaism and Christianity which use these kinds of arguments to subordinate women.
So David, while I myself have not heard the kinds of rationals for male domination with while Rebekah is so familiar, I feel confident that there are many among the many Christian and Jewish groups which do use these arguments to justify male domination of certain religious institutions. These kinds of arguments are not necessarily illogical. It is possible that one can affirm that a whole set of values held by a subject population are being morally or spiritually superior while simultaneously proclaiming that leadership roles of authority and power are retained by others most suited to them. That seems to be what the Victorian man thought in relation to the churches. Let the women perform all the lessor roles while the more practical, reasonable men serve at the heads of the Churches. Of course all of this is simple hypocrisy. But it is well suited to the needs of those in power.
Glenn
|
|
|
Rayati
Jul 3, 2018 16:17:51 GMT
Post by david on Jul 3, 2018 16:17:51 GMT
Glenn, thank you for this detailed and informative posting, which throws a lot of light, in the place of heat, on the subject.
May Shse be with you,
David.
|
|
|
Rayati
Jul 6, 2018 0:53:15 GMT
Post by racemochridhe on Jul 6, 2018 0:53:15 GMT
By a wonderful coincidence, I just ran across this in the Book of Rhianne:
"Now before we go any further, let us make one question clear. Are we saying that God is a human female? Of course not. She transcends both gender and human existence. There may be other worlds where neither humanity nor femaleness have any meaning. To the inhabitants of such worlds She will appear in a form quite incomprehensible to us, but which in the symbolic 'language' of that world *means* exactly what the form of a human female means on earth. For the forms we see on this world – from a rose to a star – are not mere 'accidents' of nature, but meanings, or divine Ideas, crystallised in matter. And the human female form is the perfect image of God Herself in this world." (p. 22)
|
|
|
Rayati
Jul 7, 2018 17:59:07 GMT
Post by Madria(priestess)sophiaruth on Jul 7, 2018 17:59:07 GMT
Hello Folks, The Coming age presents the book of Rhiannë : the definitive introduction to matriarchy and the feminine tradition. Contributors: Lux Madriana. Format: BOOK Language: English Published / Created: Burtonport (An Drochead Beo, Burtonport, County Donegal, Eire) : Lux Madriana, [1982] Can be downloaded as a PDF from www.filianicstudies.org/cms/items/show/84To clarify the 2 pairs of middle pages are from 1. The inclusive of women, men, families 1st edition. (Which I had). Date range: Autumn/Winter 1982 - ? 2. and from the 2nd edition which states in the text panel "THE SILVER SISTERHOOD Since the first publication of this book, the Bridge has become an all-female community called the Silver Sisterhood. It is open to maids and girls who would like to come and share our very different life." Date range: ? This is when the break came. Northern Earth magazine 28 August 2012 at 10:57 In 1984, the group, now numbering 8, including three children and one man, moved to Burtonport in Co Donegal, Ireland; this community broke up within months. The movement (cult) produced a magazine, The Coming Age, and seem to have become a closed movement by the 2000s. [The dating is incorrect it was September 1982 when 8 people including 1 man and 1 child moved to Burtonport. Also, it was much earlier than the 2000s that it became a closed community]. From yahoo group Deanic Conversations: "ArchMatrona Georgia has given me permission to quote this section of a personal correspondence between her and Madria Olga. The following are the words of Madria Olga: I'll tell you about Lux Madriana, (LM), Basically we can say they are two women, one Jennifer, having had contact with the traditional matriarchal people who are the guardians of the text and so on. She is very intelligent, has psychic skills, but is not spiritually developed or "qualified". She learnt everything from the traditional people who maintain their secrecy, of necessity, and we have nothing to do with them directly, which is no problem to us. Jennifer was fascinated by the tradition and tried to live it within the modern world, with a handful of others and to spread access to the texts and so on." [shortened] "They were strongly influenced by the lesbian separatist ideas around that time and the ones, only 2, I believe, who were lesbian remained, cut themselves off from everyone who were their loyal supporters and adherents, and dropped everything they had built up, under the hand of the Goddess. This was badly done, some people still want to rake over the past but I want it to be left and for us to look forward and move ahead. What they are doing now, the 2 women, is deceitful, and dishonourable, they are ensnaring young women whom they use for their pleasure. With Jennifer there was always a strong element of fantasy which is not healthy. I haven't looked at what they are saying because I'd be too angry, but it is all complete nonsense."
|
|