The Sacred Feminine

[seattlegal]

Are you sure we're supposed to rescue the Princess? Isn't she supposed to stay in the castle tower? I get my traditions confused rather rapidly when I'm out here in the tall grass!

Is the Shekhinah the Crown, or is she just trapped in the crown?

Chris

I would say no. You can't trap God in a box. I would say that it is a handy construct/form that might be useful as an interactive teaching tool, which might eventually assist us in thinking outside of the box. JMHO.

 

[Saltmeister]

And while I'm on the subject, why do Christians equate "the serpent" in the Garden of Eden with Satan also? There is no such equation in Judaism.

It seems obvious to me that Christianity has a vested interest in postulating a very, very powerful force of evil, if not exactly "equal" to God, then at least powerful enough to constitute a serious threat--to humanity, if not to God.

In Judaism the forces of evil definitely exist, and Jewish folklore is full of stories of evil spirits, but the true origin of evil is in a cosmic accident, i.e. the "fallen sparks" I referred to in my note to Chris. It doesn't originate in an act of "disobedience" of any kind, not even that famous apple-and-snake story.

Well, just like Judaism not everything in Christianity is set in stone. I don't think it essential or even mandatory to see the Satan character as something that powerful. I don't consider Satan a potent force in my life. To me it's just depression, lack of motivation and emotional needs. To me he's just a mischievous character that does naughty things, but nowhere near omnipresent enough to wreak havoc in everyone's lives!!! He could merely just be no more omnipresent than a human being with wings that can fly.

You are right though, that the "Christianity Phenomenon" does have a weird and controversial agenda. An agenda with which I often disagree.

Many Christian groups like exaggerating the concept of him just to make it look fancy. Satan doesn't actually come up that often in the Christian Texts (ie. New Testament). Whether one sees him as an omnipresent demon or just a mischievous jester playing tricks on people, who can only do it with one person at a time, is entirely up to the individual. The fundamentalists just like to make him bigger to make the concept seem fancier, rather than just another evil spirit.

Also, Judaism never developed a concept of "original sin," which to my mind is one of THE most offensive things about Christianity.

In practical, everyday terms, the Jewish belief that we all have the yetzir hara and yetzir tov (evil impulse and good impulse) accompanying us at all times is much easier to live with, just because that's more true to the reality of human experience. We all *DO* have them, and sometimes the yetzir hara gets the upper hand. It's unfortunate but it isn't something to get paralyzed with guilt about.

Original sin. Make of it what you will. Think of it as just another label. Then just throw it in the bin so you can forget about it. If people didn't call it "original sin" what would they call it? They could call it all sorts of things, or perhaps not even give it a name at all. Then they wouldn't know that they were talking about the same thing!!!

They call it the same thing just to make it look fancy just like what I said before. A concept becomes grander, funnier and more fantastic when people start using the same name to refer to that concept. If the apple-and-snake story wasn't called "original sin," Christians probably wouldn't notice the apple-and-snake story, as if noticing the story makes you a better Christian. There is so much fuss over the apple-and-snake story or "original sin" (whatever makes you happy) because of the emphasis that is put on it. So much emphasis has been put on the apple-and-snake story that people start developing a whole, full-blown detailed philosophy around it. Does a Christian need to believe in original sin to get into heaven? Isn't the apple-and-snake story just a story about two people tasting good and evil? So God banishes Adam/Eve from the garden into a reality where they can experience good and evil. So here we are now, tasting and breathing air in from a world with good and evil in it. This is the playground of good and bad.

I don't believe a Christian needs to believe in original sin or even the apple-and-snake story to get into the Christian afterlife. I see the apple-and-snake story as just a "tool of understanding." Tools of understanding are not essential. They are just useful. If a person wants to believe in something, they should ask why it is useful to believe in it.

The fundamentalist Christian view of orthodoxy is to believe in everything mentioned in Scripture, or at least everything that is debated over in the history of the Christianity. Anyone disregarding, omitting, dismissing or nullifying parts of Scripture is seen as a heretic or blasphemer. But this assumes that some of the concepts in Scripture aren't merely just "tools of understanding." Some such tools may refer to something that is true in an objective reality, but that truth isn't accessible from this reality, a reality that we can only perceive subjectively and shouldn't be seen as essential. We should only believe in what is useful to believe in given our own life experiences and acquired knowledge to date. My view of orthodoxy (right belief) is that a belief is "orthodox" if I can find a reason to believe in it. Orthodoxy for parts of Scripture is thus where we make correct use of the concepts expressed. If a concept is just a tool of understanding, it should not be treated as essential, but just a tool. Not everyone has to use the same tools, so not everyone is a "heretic" for leaving behind certain tools. It is therefore not a question of omission but appropriate usage.

All of that is self-evident, but it's a far cry from the huge weight of guilt and despair that comes about when a person internalizes a belief in original sin. I've seen what that does to fundamentalist Christians and "scrupulous" Catholics, and I thank God I was never subjected to what amounts to a deliberate psychic maiming.

What I'm trying to say is that obviously Christianity WANTS to assign an inordinate power to evil, or more likely NEEDS to.

Apparently, Raksha (or shall I call you Linda?) you seem to be on a mission. I think I can see you are merely opposing "fundamentalisms." Yeah there are certainly quite a few "traditional orthodox" people around here like Bananabrain (Orthodox Jew) and Thomas (Catholic) but they're not "fundamentalist." Correct me if I'm wrong but I've seen a lot of flaming going on in other interfaith sites, and I'm not sure if you're just used to the culture in other sites. I think I've noticed that people tend to push the point in other sites. But anyway, cool down!!! People here spend time to get to know each other, so they're not always locking horns. There isn't much fundamentalism vs. liberal thinking. We get both here but they're not at war with each other at the moment.

The "traditional orthodox" type aren't that bad here. By "traditional orthodox" I mean a kind of collectivistic orthodoxy. I think somewhere you hinted you were a Reform Jew and I've been told Reform Judaism is an individualistic approach to Judaism.

I don't agree with collectivistic orthodoxy, because collectivistic orthodoxy is either maintained by a group of people who have a certain level of knowledge, or who have average knowledge but must conform to a particular ideology or school of thinking. What you have is either elitism, a plutocracy or a group mentality. Whether individual orthodoxy is valid or reasonable would depend on how it would work within the three respective faiths. I am aware of the existence of a so-called "Orthodox Judaism" that in my impression is a collectivistic orthodoxy, and with regards to you, my question would be, are you advocating the view that a Reform Jew can possess a kind of individualistic orthodoxy to stand independent of the collectivistic one? (just confirming)

If so, it seems that you are taking collectivists to task. Anyone who appears to be collectivistic is enslaving people by serving as Gatekeepers of spirituality and you wish to resolve this gross injustice. No, I don't agree with collectivists either, but they are individuals just like you and me. I may object against their collectivistic views, which suit their own life situation but not all who seek the same goals as they do. But whether one is collectivistic or individualistic neither is better than the other. Not saying I think you believe that the collectivist can't get through the gate because his own collectivism blocks his way, but you might get to know these people after a while.

The "traditional orthodox stream" here are not bent on insisting that they have a monopoly on orthodoxy but they do think orthodoxy is an important issue and that one must develop a "right attitude" towards it. As I said, you get to know the phenomenon. A while ago I didn't understand "orthodoxy," or "orthodox people" but I think I'm starting to get it. I just don't agree with collectivistic orthodoxy, a monopolised orthodoxy. I think anyone should be able to develop their own orthodoxy.

 

[Thomas]

Well, that is THE question, isn't it? It's the only question worth asking. To my mind, ALL theology boils down to exactly one question, namely: Why is the world so f**ked up?

I wouldn't put it that way, I try and avoid overtly subjective interpretations, if only because how one frames the question invariably shapes the answer.

Also, from a Catholic perspective, such a question is essentially philosophical, not theological, as it addresses the nature of the world only. One could arrive at a natural or philosophical idea of God, as did the Greeks, or one could arrive at a non-theist solution, as perhaps Buddhism exemplifies.

But as they all seem to indicate, the problem's not the world, it's man.

If there were one answer that was acceptable and convincing to everyone, then everyone would have already accepted it a long time ago. Obviously nothing of the kind has happened.

Perhaps that's because people want empirical evidence of something that transcends the limitations of empiricism. The day that God proves his existence undeniably, is the day God places a limitation on human nature that renders 'freedom' meaningless.

Also, of course, it depends on how much effort one is prepared to make. Any solution involves one having to change ...

The answers individuals and schools of philosophy come up with (which are at best provisional answers, not "final" or definitive ones), depend to a great extent on individual temperment and world-view.

Of course they do, how can they otherwise? But this is why so many religions of antiquity fail, because man outgrows them. We still employ Greek philosophy, because it's a valid system, but we long ago abandoned their ideas on optics, for example.

That's why we each need a private gate to the Torah ... I am just NOT going to waste my time trying to get through somebody else's gate at this stage of my life. Been there, done that!

But I would argue that one's 'private gate' is nothing other than a reflection of one's temperament and world view ... in fact it's no gate at all ... what it says is the gods must come to me ... 'private gate' is self-justification.

It's too late, Linda ... you learned to read, and reading shapes your world view ... you grew up in a certain culture and that shapes who you are ... even saying 'been there, done that' pinpoints you more precisely in a certain sociocultural mileau.

A private gate assumes one is infallible.

The fact that your priorities aren't the same as mine doesn't make me "ignorant." It simply means that the answers/explanations you find satifying or acceptable are not acceptable to me. And vice versa, of course.

I did not mean to offend by 'the voice of ignorance', but merely to point out that because one knows a lot about one thing, one can fall into the trap of assuming one knows a lot about lots of things.

Don't like Catholicism if you don't want to, but please endeavour not to like it for a valid reason. On the other hand, I have not and will not challenge what you choose to believe, but I will challenge those who make erroneous statements about someone else's belief.

Thomas

 

[Raksha]

Tonight I discovered what I didn't even know I was looking for--the work of the feminist theologin Asphodel Long. Unfortunately, I only learned her name three years after her death, and the link is to an article on her memorial website. It's called The Goddess in Judaism - An Historical Perspective.

Goddess in Judaism

There are also some interesting shorter pieces--I especially liked the one about the menorah as a symbol for the Tree of Life and the Goddess, a connection I was already familiar with from another source.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Apparently, Raksha (or shall I call you Linda?) you seem to be on a mission. I think I can see you are merely opposing "fundamentalisms."

Saltmeister,

You can call me either Linda or Raksha. Raksha is a nickname given to me years ago by an online friend, and I've used it as my screen name ever since. But I sign my posts with my real name because I'm not attempting to hide my identity.

I've tried and tried to come up with a suitable reply to your post, one that would be reasonably civilized but still honest, but it's just no use. The more I try, the less capable of it I become.

That's my fault, not yours. I know you mean well and you were trying to get me to be less intense and confrontational, but I fail to see the humor in the idea of original sin. It isn't just a harmless affectation to magnify the power of evil to the point where it becomes almost equal to the power of God. Inevitably, when that happens evil is no longer "owned" or recognized as existing within, but must ALWAYS be projected onto the Other, the Enemy. And that isn't "Satan" or the equivalent either, but other human beings who are seen as agents of Satan. I've been on the receiving end of countless negative projections, both as an individual and as a member of various out-groups (Jew, feminist, heretic, etc.) and I'm more than fed up with it.

There are other things I dislike about the apple-and-snake story that I didn't mention in my earlier post, but they are every bit as important to me as the idea of original sin. One of my biggest issues is its use as a propaganda device to discredit and dispower WOMEN. It is an artificial myth, deliberately fabricated for that purpose, and it was a supremely effective propaganda tool for well over 2000 years. And for that Judaism bears the responsibility, because after all the story is the first one in the Hebrew Bible.

Bananabrain knows exactly what I'm talking about here. It was a particular group, at a particular time and place, that was responsible. They had an agenda which I do not and cannot share and under no circumstances will I condone it. I won't accept any excuses on their behalf either.

Yeah there are certainly quite a few "traditional orthodox" people around here like Bananabrain (Orthodox Jew) and Thomas (Catholic) but they're not "fundamentalist."

I agree that they aren't fundamentalists, but they always seem to end up acting as apologists for the fundamentalists. BB at least doesn't do it with present-day fundamentalists, but he's way too easy on the ones with a patina of age or tradition. I have a much less benign view of them. And I don't "merely" oppose fundamentalism, I utterly detest it. And what I despise ABOVE ALL is patriarchy. There is no way I'm going to listen to arguments for the perpetuation of a system of domination and oppression that never should have existed in the first place. I fail to see any "greater good" it has ever advanced, or any reason for its continued existence.

This is what has me paralyzed (again!) with so much hatred and anger that I've become incoherent. And it's NOT because they have "challenged" me--I wouldn't want them to flatter themselves into believing that for one minute! It's because once again I've become overwhelmed with the depths of evil human beings--and MEN, especially--are capable of when they believe they are doing God's will. That's when "the end justifies the means" and the unthinkable becomes thinkable...and even "virtuous." Not only has it happened over and over again throughout history, it is STILL happening and shows no signs of abating.

But there is no sense in buying into the Us vs. Them mindset, even to oppose it. That's THEIR game, after all, and the last thing I want is to become what I despise. It would be one thing if I were any good at it, but obviously I'm NOT, as I just proved to myself all over again. The way to reclaim power is not to ask the male religious establishment for validation, because obviously that's never going to happen.

But the Goddess is real, and her power is real. I almost forgot about that, but the example of Asphodel Long (I linked to her site in my previous post) and other powerful women showed me the possibility of a new/old source of authority. I call her Sophia, and she's an old friend of mine. Although sometimes I wonder how she puts up with me.

--Linda

 

[bananabrain]

I walked away from Catholicism on the principle that I did not view the body as wrtong, bad, sinful, etc., ... only later did I realise that such doctrines are gnostic, not orthodox ... and that if you want to understand, then informed commentary is a must.

And yes, we are not perfect ... but we do have a 2,000 year tradition of philosophy, and we do have answers for the questions you pose that are considered, and profound. Even if I feel inclined to argue.

yeah, i guess that isn't really a surprise. i don't have a problem with people like yourself, who are really what i'd call the "awkward squad", (much like myself) but with people who are less likely to ask difficult questions; unfortunately catholicism is not short of that - and i still haven't heard a decent answer from anyone about why a larger dose of pragmatism in matters of contraception, celibacy and divorce would not be in order. but that's probably a debate for another day.

If one accepts the idea of 'cosmic accident' then why does God not put it right? Why does He allow suffering in the world through His own fault? To me, that makes the God of Israel neither omnipotent nor just ... closer indeed, to the demiurge that Marcion, for example, tried to imply, and a view that most Christian theologians vigorously resisted.

because that is precisely what gives humanity its mission of tiqqun, or repair. it is our task to repair and improve the world. this is the meaning of our stewardship (NOT "dominion") over the earth and nature. were G!D to fix everything for us, there would be no incentive for us to grow, improve or evolve. if you are a parent, thomas, then you'll understand why you have to sometimes let your child stick its finger in a lightbulb, or fall over rather than catching it, or take the consequences of its actions, even when you *could* protect it or prevent it from hurting itself. humanity should not be mollycoddled and given "get out of jail free" cards or "blank cheques", both of which i have heard attributed to christian salvation - albeit not by catholics, so far.

i rather like the way that chris quotes leonora leet, here:

It is only by way of the Fall, the Shevirah, that man can accomplish, both below and above, this divine transformation, by modeling himself upon the future perfection of divine personality. It is not, then, through a past modeling, with it's implied angelic takeover of the human will, that man can make his necessary contribution to the cosmic design, nor through such modern occult forms as trance mediumship that aim at a similar return to the cosmic past. Rather, it is through such future modeling as can only arise from a fully self-aware ego that man can both model and remodel the divine image.

albeit i don't see what her rationale for a seven-world model is. i've seen many configurations of how this stuff works, some better than others.

Is the Shekhinah the Crown, or is she just trapped in the crown?

neither.

To my mind, ALL theology boils down to exactly one question, namely: Why is the world so f**ked up?

hah! i do like your way of cutting right to the chase!

You're damn right I'll use my own judgment, because my own "judgment" as you call it happens to be my own CONSCIENCE. The only alternative to that is using someone else's judgment, and I totally reject your analogy. There are no experts comparable to medical experts when it comes to basic issues of right and wrong, given normal intelligence and a normal conscience.

i don't see how you can possibly say that. both of those are not nearly as given as you seem to think, nor are they the only factors that must be considered. we both know, i am sure, of cases where doctors are influenced by the considerations of the pharmaceutical industry, or government funding, or scientific prestige, or are merely incompetent, unfeeling or disinterested. what we are doing is trusting that the process that they have gone through in attending medical school and ongoing professional development makes it more likely than not that we can trust their judgement - but that does *not* mean that we suspend our own ongoing judgement as to whether their opinion holds water or not. if you flip over the argument, what you appear to be doing is merely presuming the untrustworthiness of [male] traditional religious authority figures rather than giving it any benefit of the doubt - and i recognise that you may have good reason to do so, but it does not therefore follow that your own position should be the default, normative one.

Nor do I see where the rabbis of the Talmud have improved on it.

without wishing to be condescending at all, perhaps you should spend some time studying how they deal with the issue of the death penalty, business contracts and standards of evidence, because i can assure you that the humanity and compassion they constantly demonstrate are not only astounding by the standards of their times, but have a lot to teach us even today.

On the contrary, their judgments seem inferior to mine because they aren't free to contradict the Torah even when it advocates genocide.

firstly, it does no such thing. secondly, the corpus is full of cases when they apply their own judgement to frustrate apparent inequity, from the oven of achnai onwards, where G!D ends up defeated in an argument and laughs, in pride, that "My children have defeated Me!"

as for the wiccan rede, it's all very well to live by the golden rule, but the trouble is that it depends on your definition of "harm", "you", "do" and "none". there is a wealth of ambiguity here where plenty of harm can be done, depending on one's perspective.

the part about the sages vs. the masses just reeked of unconscious paternalism and condescension, the essence of what I absolutely hate about the "Gatekeeper" mentality.

look, i'm sorry if i upset you, but the fact is that some people are stupid and have poor judgement. i am sure that you agree that many laws (e.g. the prohibition of drink-driving) are necessary to make explicit rules for people who should know better, but don't. i would have worked out by myself that drink-driving is unethical and dangerous and i don't apologise for having a brain. it doesn't mean i think everyone is equally trustworthy. now you and i may be on opposite sides of the nature-nurture dispute, but i think your view of people is unwarrantedly optimistic given how little you seem to display this optimism in relation of power structures. it reminds me a little of revolutionary socialists, who are fighting for "the people", when in fact if they ever actually got out of the coffee bar and met "the people", they'd find that they were often a bunch of small-minded, conservative, irrational, parochialists, very much like the faults attributed to the "ruling class" and astonishingly like the behaviour of revolutionary socialists once they actually start running things.

I am aware of the existence of a so-called "Orthodox Judaism" that in my impression is a collectivistic orthodoxy, and with regards to you, my question would be, are you advocating the view that a Reform Jew can possess a kind of individualistic orthodoxy to stand independent of the collectivistic one? (just confirming)

reform, as i was taught when i was part of it, asserts the subsidiarity of human individuality as a sort of supreme value. orthodoxy discounts this subsidiarity of individual assent, invoking the authority of tradition. where orthodoxy is wrong (and reform, i believe is ironically correct) is that one's individual free-will still functions in connection with whether one chooses to regard authority as, well, authoritative. the sages knew this, which is why they said "everything is in the hands of heaven except the awe of heaven".

One of my biggest issues is its use as a propaganda device to discredit and dispower WOMEN. It is an artificial myth, deliberately fabricated for that purpose, and it was a supremely effective propaganda tool for well over 2000 years. And for that Judaism bears the responsibility, because after all the story is the first one in the Hebrew Bible. Bananabrain knows exactly what I'm talking about here. It was a particular group, at a particular time and place, that was responsible. They had an agenda which I do not and cannot share and under no circumstances will I condone it. I won't accept any excuses on their behalf either.

eh? if you want to blame anyone for disempowering women, you should blame the greeks and romans, who got it into western thought patterns. if anything, judaism was an emancipatory force for women, during its classical phase at least. i mean, for feck's sake, the property rights of women are asserted in Torah, with the daughters of zelophekhad. look, i realise you've got an issue here, but i don't think anyone is ever going to measure up to the sort of standards you want, any more than private property is ever going to be abolished.

This is what has me paralyzed (again!) with so much hatred and anger that I've become incoherent.

i am sorry for this. unfortunately it seems to be very difficult for us to speak about these issues here in a way that doesn't outrage, condescend or otherwise offend you; considering that, as they say, "some of my best friends are radical feminists", i struggle a bit to see how i'm being quite so unreasonable and unpleasant. it just comes across as if you don't see how anyone could possibly have any other valid point of view that might gainsay your own. all i can say is to repeat that i cannot see how G!D's Will demands injustice and inequity and do my best to rectify historical instances of it.

b'shalom

bananabrain