I am so sorry that I missed the "dubiousness of saints" thread. I love the Golden Legend. Example: the long story of the life of Judas, which recounts among other things how he killed his father and married his mother.
Xopher: I think the two definitions of "cult" that fidelio provided from Wikipedia explain the two usages of the term. I do still find it a little unsettling that Goddess worship always seems to be branded "cult," never "religion."
fidelio: thanks for your long and thoughtful response. As you noticed, I have managed to develop a system of belief that I feel comfortable with. Of course, it is all an ongoing process.
Well, there you go. A "fact," or "artifact," a concrete physical item, is undeniably real. It's in the interpretation of that fact that things get sticky - and objectivity goes right out the window.
Is a written record more, or less, "factual" than a statue?
From a Pagan point of view, of course, sexuality is sacred. There seems to be an assumption in that article that if a thing is "pornographic," it cannot be "religious." That is one huge distortion right there - from a Pagan point of view.
CHip said: But creating history seems a bit like what I recall of Xopher's comments on personal <mythology> it helps to accept that it is personal, and every person's is different.
Yes, exactly: it is personal, and every person's is different. I don't have a problem with that.
I guess what I mean is, I'm not asking for Goddess religion to be accepted as "historical fact" by everyone. I'm saying, I believe that the Goddess is a valid concept. Many people agree with me. (It's not just a question of one crazy person making stuff up - we're all crazy here : )
We can't enforce our personal beliefs on society at large, but we are fortunate to live in an era (and a place) where societal constraints on religious belief are weaker than they have been at other times.
Fidelio said: However, I want the evidence to be carefully studied and interpreted, with some effort at objectivity.
(and Graydon agreed.)
Because I state that I have a personal interest in the matter, you assume that I can't be objective. I'm not taking that as an insult, but I will state that it is possible to be objective about one's personal beliefs - with sufficient effort.
Furthermore, how do you know that other persons are truly objective? They might not make their personal biases clear, but that doesn't mean they have no bias. They might say "I'm being objective," but what does that really mean?
I started rereading Rebirth of the Goddess by Carol Christ last night, and she specifically challenges the notion of objectivity. I'm not capable of repeating all her arguments here, though.
Graydon defined "religion" as:
participation is the social default (effort to leave); publicly conducted ritual; identified with a population rather than a place; general worship, covering all major life events.
I think that a temple such as the one to Artemis at Epheseus would provide a location for "publicly conducted ritual." I'm not sure how you can separate a population from a place. I know there are goddesses to cover "all major life events," from birth to death.
I can't "prove" anything about Goddess religion. I still think that the definition of religion as "a means of social control" (to paraphrase Graydon) is incomplete and, in fact, distorted. But there's no way to argue with someone's personal beliefs, is there?
What it comes down to is, "official religion" and "official history" have nothing to offer me, no place for me. So what should I do?
(BTW, you can take that question as rhetorical if you want. I'm not trying to prolong this discussion ad nauseaum.)
Xopher said: One of the things GG did was "discover" new "ancient" texts to try to disempower Doreen. That's where the "because of her youth and beauty" nonsense came from, for example. He just wanted a young trophy-priestess.
Oh yes. I've read her description of that event in her memoir. And yet they did seem to become friendly again, eventually.
fidelio, on the two definitions of "cult": thanks for the info. It seems like we are still on the original topic of this thread : )
Speaking of which, there were several examples given upthread of a cult which gets promoted into a religion. It seems to me now that obsolete religions can also degrade back into cult status.
While waiting for Graydon to comment, I'll just say that his original statement was:
There are no non-Patriarchal religions of any historical significance in written history. There are significant goddess cults . . .
My question is, why is it apparently impossible to have a Goddess religion, as opposed to a goddess cult?
And btw one may call Christianity the cult of Jesus of Nazareth. Techically that's accurate even though it's the most widespread "cult" in the world.
I was going to say something about that, but decided to use the bandwidth for other things.
Re: Gerald Gardner. I like Doreen Valiente's books. She worked with Gardner to create the "new" witchcraft, and seems to have respected him, but not more than he deserved. She also mentions that he was not entirely truthful.
Heatherly asked me: Does the Carol Christ book discuss modern female spirituality? A friend from Tanzania related some fascinating stories about the 'women's worship' there that still occurs today, and I've been trying to find more sources.
Modern female spirituality in what part of the world? I haven't read the book in a while, but Carol Christ (as you may know) is a major figure in the American feminist spirituality movement. What I recall is that she talks some about that, and some about Goddess worship in her "adopted country" of Greece. And covers other areas of the topic as well.
As for modern female spirituality in Africa . . . I found Oya: In Praise of an African Goddess by Judith Gleason to be very interesting, but I don't remember if she says anything specifically about how women interact with Oya.
Graydon said: The words have reasonably precise technical meanings, and that's how I'm using them. "Classical Paganism" is a religion; the worship of Diana of the Ephesians at Ephesus was a cult.
I don't know what the precise technical definition of "religion" and "cult" are - could you clarify?
It's interesting that you should mention Diana of the Ephesians, because this conversation reminded me of this quote from the New Testament (Acts 19:27):
And there is danger not only that this trade of ours [creating silver statues of Artemis] may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Ar'temis may count for nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship.
How does a goddess whom "all the world" worships not qualify as a "religious" figure, as opposed to a "cult" figure? How does this fit with your earlier statement that There are significant goddess cults . . . but very little territorial control by any of them.?
You also mentioned that:
As far as the NA cultures go -- I'd like to note that everything for which we actually have decent contact records happened after a truly monumental disease-driven die off.
This illustrates a problem with "written history" (which Heatherly also referred to.) Written history is not complete. It excludes large areas of human experience. If you do not belong to the dominant class, if you are the wrong gender or ethnic group, you do not get accurately represented in the historical record. This has always been true in the past, and continues to be more true than it should be in the present. Also - IIRC, Riane Eisler points out in The Chalice and the Blade that human history extends much further back in time than "written history" per se.
"History" is a construct, an extrapolation from what sources we have. It's not universally agreed upon, and it's not unchangeable.
The statement "There is nothing in written history to support the idea of a Goddess religion" is literally true. The statement "Therefore, there have never been any Goddess religions" is not true.
Those of us who have been excluded from written history have the right to question the accuracy and value of a historical record that does not include us. We have the right to attempt to create our own history - which is exactly what those who control "written history" have been doing all along.
mayakda: I couldn't remember if you had asked for recommendations or not. Otherwise I would have specifically recommended the Carol Christ book to you.
It was written after the first wave of books about "Goddess-worshipping matriarchies" had died down, and IMO she takes a more reasoned view of the subject.
Actually I want to re-read the book now.
Xopher: did you ever happen to read The Rebirth of the Goddess by Carol Christ? I liked that book quite a bit.
Graydon: your definition of "religion" seems to be different from mine. I'm not sure what my definition of religion is, so I can't really go there, but I would like to comment on one thing:
There are no non-Patriarchal religions of any historical significance in written history. There are significant goddess cults . . .
Using the word "cult" to refer to "goddess worship" and the word "religion" to refer to "Patriarchal religions" is insulting. I understand that it is common usage for many writers, so I'm not directing this at you personally. But it is the equivalent of referring to Buddhism (or any non-Christian religion) as a "cult", and only allowing Christianity the status of "religion," which I believe some Christians do.
I also find your use of capitalization very interesting. "Patriarchal" gets capitalized, but "goddess" does not?
I agree with you that throughout written history, Pretty much all religion has historically been heavily tied into the legitimacy of land holding and kingly authority . . . but I don't believe that is the only thing religion is "for."
What is your take on indigenous Native American religions? Supposedly they were not much into the concepts of land ownership and kingly authority.
Graydon said: . . . it is all very well to be Queen of Heaven, but if what being Queen of Heaven means is an existence entirely for the benefit of God, it's not an empowering image or belief.
Yeah, but, like, if it doesn't mean that, if it means that no one outranks the Queen of Heaven, then it is empowering, right? I feel silly even trying to make this point.
Would you be referring to the Christian concept of Mary as Queen of Heaven? It doesn't seem appropriate to take an explicitly patriarchal religion as an example.
what mayakda said, too.
Maybe I'm not capable of responding to this coherently, but why should I let that stop me?
Mary Root said:
There were probably societies where women had more rights than others, but as to any subsistance society being a feminist paradise, well, I have serious doubts.
Why do you say that about "subsistence societies" in particular?
The whole notion of a lost matriarchal past, where women were worshipped and powerful, is to me a dangerous fantasy. It implies that the world we live in now is a wrong one. . .
Are you saying that the world we live in now is not a wrong one? Do you feel that women typically receive fair and equitable treatment?
and that some grave injustice, which we had no part in and are the victims of, destroyed every chance of happiness for women.
I guess some people do enjoy thinking of themselves as victims. And certainly, women in the early stages of feminism tend to go through an awful lot of anger and agonizing. But I don't believe that patriarchy (if I may call it that) destroyed every chance of happiness for women.
I find it difficult to see how anyone could argue that images of/belief in powerful, divine, female figures do not empower women.
It absolves us of responsibility for the current world we live in, and the dulls the necessity of political action.
It's true that there does seem to be a split between those who believe in spiritual action (which may not look, to the skeptical, like "action" of any kind) and those who believe in political action.
OTOH, suppose a hypothetical Goddess-worshipper felt it was her duty to bring about a revolution that would result in women being honored and empowered, the way she believes it was in the past. That seems like a pretty political and inspiring belief.
My personal beliefs have evolved to the point where I don't consider terms like "matriarchy" to be useful. And I've encountered my share of annoying new agers. But I feel that by dismissing Goddess theories (yes, I acknowedge it is all theory) as "New Age Foolishness," you're slapping a label on it that it doesn't deserve.
Andy: good one.
mayakda said: Doesn't that just support the idea of that there's a period in prehistory where women are seen as figures of supernatural power?
Then Andy said: I haven't read Margaret Murray, but isn't that what she was arguing?
I can't remember if I've read any of Murray's books or not, but the usual summary of her theme is "People who were burned as witches were practicing an ancient pagan religion." I don't recall her getting all matriarchal about it. (She was writing c. 100 years ago, before the Goddess thing really got underway.)
BTW, women are still seen as figures of supernatural power. A friend of mine told me this joke, told to her by a teenage boy:
Q: Why do women have all the power in the world?
A: Because they have all the vaginas.
Teleka said: I believe that God accepts homosexuals just like God accepts everyone else. But God also requires them to become like Godself . . .
So, God is heterosexual? Or what?
I agree that posting so many personal details about Teleka was somewhat impolite.
On When God was a Woman - the things I still remember from reading that many years ago are:
a) the Old Testament is a story about one tribe (the Israelites) coming into another tribe's territory (Canaan), killing all the people who lived there and taking their land. This is described as being a righteous thing for the Israelites to do, because God "gave" that land to them. (I've read since then that this is probably not what really happened - but still. It is presented in the Bible as a Good Thing.)
b) the Canaanites worshipped both goddesses and gods. The revelation for me here was that it was possible to worship a goddess and take Her seriously.
Growing up in Christian land, this was a totally foreign concept. On two levels: first, the idea that other religions are valid is anathema to fundamentalist Christianity.
Second, "female" is the opposite of "divine." The first time I read the words "When God was a Woman," I was shocked. It was the equivalent of saying, "When God was a Xylophone." "When God was a Piece of S**t." It made no sense to me at all. I was extremely happy when it did start to make sense.
Even if the book itself is no longer accepted as "accurate," I think you could argue, that, like the Bible, it doesn't necessarily need to be taken literally.
Final note - yes, that is The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 62 |
| 2004 | 66 |
Total: 128 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Laura Roberts:
Show all comments by Laura Roberts.