Discussion Topic #22: The Divine Feminine--How would our world change if we embraced God in feminine terms/symbols?

I wouldn't miss the long white beard.

Arent you talking about so-called paganism.Squashed and killed in its true form(mostly by the catholic church...i.e. the spanish inqusition,thecrusades...). Worshipping MOTHER earth is not a new concept.the most ancient of peoples believed procreation required only the womb from which the child came.Matriarical societies abounded in many early cultures,the idea of GOD in the masculine is a fairly new concept...well only in the last few millinia.
They had balance which is the truth of the divine is it not? It takes 2 for a child to start.The UNIT not THE male,or THE female.The two together,shouldn't it follow then ,our creator if we are made in that image,is both masculine and at the same time feminine?Would not the blending of the two be more accurate?

consider this....HE,SHE...HIM,HER....MENstration.....HYSterectomy.isnt duality ingrained in our DNA? Should we limit our creator to one sex?

What are the reparcussions of that?

The Bible does speak of God in feminine terms, as well as masculine, but we tend to be selective readers. If we read more carefully we would know that male and female are both in His image - with "His" meaning personal, not masculine, and his image too great to be encapsulated in one human gender. What would change? Lots of things if we accepted what God tells us - male and female traits equally valued, men and women learning from each other instead of trying to turn one into the other, cooperation, caring... Interesting that one of the protestant objections to the Catholic church was its emphasis on the female in Mary.

Excellent point Sheila. It takes a better understanding of the text in the original language/Hebrew to know that G-d is indeed referred to just as you stated. Who ever stated otherwise?

Sch an important question and distinction to make in article and subsequent answers.

When I first "met" God during my spiritual "awakening" I had already rejected what I knew of formal religions, was not seeking God, only highest truth ... but shortly thereafter during one of m initial "conversations" with what I believed to be that aspect of God we "can" speak with, my higher Self or Soul, I had a feeling that "IT" was far "different" than the physical ego me asking questions, the male that I was in body, so I asked if She were in fact a She because that in relationship to me the male would be closer to the Equal Balance that I had lays suspected God to be ... and the "answer" back was in the affirmative with me being also told "that I was very perceptive" in those words as best I recall.

I have since written my entire book around that theme of the aspect of God that we can experience, THE SPIRIT is that which involves ALL POTENTIALS and thus is in a sense NEUTRAL and BALANCED ... as IS GOD in THAT REGARD ... IMnsHO.


From what I have read of esoteric sources, there were times in our ancient history when the females were in control ... and then as now, some of those got out of hand, too far to that extreme, away from the necessary balance to where there were problems ... serious ones. Balance is key to everything. All things in moderation. :-) ... yes, even "that" (maybe).

My world wouldn't change at all...I embrace the Goddess in all things. I refer to the creator as 'she' in my everyday life....truthfully, I believe man and woman are equal, one would not exist without the other...just like the yin and yang, the God and Goddess go hand in hand. To a lot of people 'God' being a woman would absolutely blow them away. Parts of the Mormon Church, for example, do not allow women to be ordained as ministers...that kind of thinking simply wouldn't be accepted. There would be anarchy and rebellion, people would branch off and create new religions. Maybe generations from now, when we are dead and gone...the Human race will be more openminded and accepting of different ways of thinking....Honestly I can't fathom such a place... Although, I will admit, I'm not as educated as I'd like to be on this subject, but I'm getting there...I think 'God' being male is burned into our brains at a very young age (keep in mind, I am from the South, some would refer to it as the 'Bible Belt')...all around us, wherever we go, we hear people speaking about 'God' as a man, and over time get comfortable with it. I wasn't raised any certain religion, my mother answered my questions with questions and I was forced to educate myself. I was drawn to paganism because of it's freedom, light and positive energy. I know now that the power is in me...I am the only one that can change my life. I think if everyone embraced that kind of thinking the world would be a better place...in theory of course.

I'm with Raven, I too DO NOT put a gender or specific species, for that matter, on my/our Universal power source. Balance, as in nature has always been my path and that has also included masculine/feminine energies within, as well as with surrounding experiences and relationships.
A great point for pondering though Carla ;)

The point, I think, is in the balance. If we are the children, or created in the image of, a universal energy, we are each a complete manifestation AND each of us is an integral (holographic) piece of the whole. We are essentially androgenous, though each may manifest with greater or lesser androgeny.

I never thought of god as male or female...it is both energy and as long as the balance is kept, this so great energy will extend more and more.
Intriguing question
thank you

Your question made me realize that the MALEness our major religions give to God has a great deal to do with the horrible abuse to which we have subjected the earth, which is a feminine manifestation of God. Changing the gender of our concept of God could change the course of our history. . . The trick will be to get them to listen.

I do not view God as either male or female. Such human representations lessen God's power and total perfection. God is the supreme force, our souls originate from that force, and return to it after our physical body dies.

I see that many of you agree that God is neither male or female but rather a force or energy. This is more the way that I perceive God. But I also believe that the majority of people, especially Jews, Christians and Muslims, see God as a male. This, in my opinion, has led to a patriarchal society where women are not as valued as men (women still make 80% of what men do for the same work). In some societies women are still viewed as property and not even as human beings. I believe that this is having a negative impact on the world. Look at the abuse of women in other countries--the rapes, torture, genital mutilation.

The qualities that we associate with women, such as softness, compassion, feelings, nurturing--are in many cases under-valued. They are also suppressed by many men, who feel that they must not show those characteristics or they will be seen as sissies, weak, effeminate or as homosexuals.

And I agree, Ann, I believe that the environment is also impacted by this masculine concept of the divine. In the Bible, it says that God gave us dominion over the earth, but it did not say we should abuse it. The earth, as mother, is seen as a creative force. Mankind has sought to conquer and control that force and use it, often for selfish reasons. The same has been said of women. In the Bible, in one of the creation stories we are told that woman was made as a companion for man, more as an afterthought. This allegory, taken literally, has been used as an excuse by some men to feel that they have a God-given right to control women.

As far as war...would we be in Iraq now if we perceived God as a nurturing, compassionate force that was unconditionally loving rather than a warrior or king sitting on a throne in heaven?

These are some additional things to think about as we contemplate this question.

Carla -

As others have said before me, we have had cultures in the past that have worshiped feminine divines and also had matriarchal societies.

I do not see masculine or feminine or even neutral worship as spawning a better or worse situation then we have now. A happy thought but much to simple as each of these have been dominate throughout different times in history and the same ugliness has plagued the world.

Taylor Caldwell wrote THE EARTH IS THE LORD'S (1941), a fictional biography of Ghengis Khan. The basic theme is evil comes and evil goes. A person must live a 'good' life as times change but in the end the earth belongs not to the dictators and cruel rulers but to g_d.

Anita, I am not espousing the worship of a female deity, but rather the incorporation of what have been called female attributes to the one God. Most of us grew up with the view of God as a male king sitting on his throne in heaven. We were taught that men ruled the world (except for Queen Elizabeth). As a little girl, I believed that because there were only male disciples that Jesus favored boys over little girls. There are many more examples of how women have been conditioned over the years to see themselves as inferior. Granted, things are better for women, but there are many that still picture God as a male. My question is, how does that affect the world, men and women, and the next generation?

Thank you for your question. There are many of us, of course, who have already embraced the feminine divine. In my community we maintain a tradition of service to Isis that is thousands of years old. We are the oldest continous faith on Earth. And while we are very tiny and very isolated by choice, we believe our continued existence alone is a tribute to the enduring authority of what generations have described as the Goddess. We also recognize that our unbroken witness to the sacred female has known times of great popularity and seasons of equally great neglect. This does not worry us in the least because a truth is always a truth no matter who wants to believe it. As a priestess of Isis, I know that one day humanity will rediscover the gentle power that has been protecting us all of these countless generations, even when, like children, we were unaware of our Mother's presence.

Isis, I am curious as to whether you consider Isis to be a different deity than the God that is worshipped in the Bible, or do you see Isis as that God with female attributes? In other words, do you believe that their is more than just one god? I know the Greeks believed in many gods.

Carla, thank you for the kind and open way you put your question. I hope my answer is in the same spirit of coming to know one another, perhaps most especially when we seem so different. I am very familiar with the Christian faith in its several varieties. I respect both the Hebrew and Christian canons and I understand their shared concept of the one true God. I would not debate this theology or challenge it, but I would offer my small voice for a different perspective. What I have devoted my life to is not the God of Israel, but the ancient Goddess of Egypt, Isis. For generations beyond counting now, my ancestors have maintained an unbroken service to Isis. We understand her to be the most ancient manifestation of the holy in human history. In other words, when "God" first revealed himself, he was a she. As humanity, when we first became aware of the divine in our lives, we discovered the eternal feminine. Isis revealed herself to us from the very beginning of historic time and she is with us to this very day. Isis is "God" for me in this sense. She is from a different story than the one told in Israel, but her love for all people reminds me of the faith so many good Christians embrace. I hope this is not too wordy an explanation. Thank you again for asking.

Carla, please excuse another post from me, but I did not answer your question as directly as I should have. You asked me if there are other gods. Yes, of course. Osiris, the great consort of Isis, and Horus, the child of heaven, also have shrines in our Temple. Toth, the Scribe, is there as well. Those of us who have kept this faith are small now in numbers and not well known even where we live, but like an underground stream we have been bringing life to the same desert for thousands of years. Our gods are still very much alive.

Thanks for your explanation, Isis. Yes, your religion is very old. I have some knowledge of it. I respect you and your beliefs. I do not condemn people who believe differently than I do. I believe it is a person's character that is important. I have known some Christians that were very hateful and judgmental people. And I know an atheist who is one of the most moral people I have ever known. Thank goodness for freedom of religion!

Carla,

"I do not condemn people who believe differently than I do."

A nice thought, but I don't believe it. I have witnessed you berate and mock people, including myself, and defame the Book Christians base their understanding of God upon, many times.

John, it is your opinion that I "defame" the Bible. I merely point out, what other theologians point out, that it can't always be taken literally. I spent 22 mos. in seminary studying the Bible and I read it often as it has great meaning for me. But I don't think that we're supposed to cut off our hand if we sin with it. I suppose that you take that literally John?

As far as mocking and berating people, that's like the pot calling the kettle black. You know as well as I do that you have insulted me on several comment strings. You time and time again resort to personal attacks rather than discussing issues. You have tried on many occasions to portray me as some horrible person and, quite honestly, I really don't care what you believe or think about me.

Carla,

"I merely point out, what other theologians point out, that it can't always be taken literally"

I have no interest in your "sock puppet" reality. If you wish to believe what you heard men say, and then claim your actions are justified by that belief, you are free to do so. Why on earth that would absolve one of the very tolerance you claim to be championing, I cannot imagine. If the folks that wrote the Book are just fallible humans, liable to delusion or deceit, what makes your sources any different? Mightn't they be people too, with any number of weaknesses and axes to grind?

The fact that Carla finds them more credible than the Book, is Carla's dealeo, not a rational justification for passing judgment on other's, and then claiming one is just being true to an ultimate set of "facts" one assumes.

Here again, you make scathing accusations, as if others are to simply accept what you say as if spoken by God Himself. You are no god, and your accusations are, I suspect, nothing more than defensive tactics to avert the readers eye from the central point I raised; Your inclusiveness, and open mindedness, and unconditional love, does not extend to anything you do not find compatible with your own beliefs.

PS

The Book does not say;

"we're supposed to cut off our hand if we sin with it."

It says;

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it away, for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell

You see, the thing with "literal" that one must not forget, is that we must be literal, and not simply pick and choose which words count, and which do not. That little bitty word IF, can mean quite a bit. That human beings actually do cut of their hands on rare occasion, to save the entire being, is a known fact. I would advise that if one's life is endangered by ones hand being attached to the arm, it would indeed be wise to remove it, and save the whole it has no other purpose to exist for. It will die either way.

Christ is simply using the example of such an extreme thing, to point out the need to take these matters very seriously, and not just kid ourselves. He demonstrates quite clearly, that he is not kidding anyone.

PPS

I don't doubt for a moment that if the Book used feminine terms in relation to God, I would be here speaking to a person that had arrived at the conclusion THAT was the problem we ought to correct, in order to fix the world. And I would be capitalizing the S in she, sometimes.

Much like Spanish, Hebrew does not have gender neutral pronouns. Either He or She had to be used, to indicate God was a "person", and not simply a thing. Obviously God is not a sexual being, and includes all manner of wisdom and grace, including both masculine and feminine sorts of qualities, as we might choose to define such things.

So if you believe that God has no gender, then I guess we finally agree on something, John.

As far as I am concerned, anyone that speaks of God who does not think there is only one for the sake of universal relationship, is really speaking of but a god or gods.

Carla,

I have no doubt we agree on many things. I did not comment here to take issue with everything you speak of, much of that I do agree with.

I am simply calling on you to "practice what you preach", be tolerant, and inclusive, and unconditionally loving, and so desist from transforming what you believe true, into declarations of fact, which others either agree with, or are spoken of derisively. Include those who have opinions you do not agree with about such Books, or please stop claiming you are casting a greater "tent" here. If a Christian cannot be right for seeing the Book as legitimate, then it must be true that a Muslim cannot either, nor a Jew, if they do not declare the Books they learned of God's nature from untrustworthy. This is a rather stringent criterion for being admitted to your tent.

If you believe God has revealed to you that a particular text is invalid, for whatever reason, then I would advise you do what is sane, and refrain from taking such Books as legitimate.   If, however, you just "figure" a text is not the words of God, then I would advise you be human about the matter, and not take your own opinion as the "Gospel truth". You know it's not, you know you are not God, and might be wrong, and those you are "instructing" right.

In the end, it is only what God might reveal to us that matters. Not our idea of God, but God Himself. He revealed the Bible is His work, to me. I do not "believe" the Koran is the Word of God. I simply don't know. He has not "spoken" to me of that. I do not know if He has spoken to others through those words, for I cannot hear within the silence of another. But IF He does speak through those Words to my fellows, and I were to disturb the silence it had led them to approach . . . I would be wrong.

Jerry,

"As far as I am concerned, anyone that speaks of God who does not think there is only one for the sake of universal relationship, is really speaking of but a god or gods."

Does this mean you believe humans are incapable of coming up with invalid concepts about God? If so, your "snake is eating his own tail". Either men can speak and write what is not true of God, or they cannot. If they can commit such acts, it would be irrational to include all concepts of God in one's belief. If they cannot, one must accept that the Book is the literal Word of God, for I speak and write as if it is.

John, in this forum I allow people to express their own beliefs and do not judge. I may disagree, but I never tell people that they are wrong--which you yourself have been known to do.

You believe that the Bible is the word of God. I believe that it was written by men who were inspired, but also influenced by the culture and myths of the times. It was written hundreds of years after the fact. It was translated from one language into yet another language and then another. There are inconsistencies even between the various writers. Most theologians take all this into consideration when looking at interpretation.

It does not bother me that you wish to look at the Bible as the literal word of God. That is your right. What bothers me is that you want to try to make everyone else wrong who sees it differently. You say that God revealed the Bible to you. Well God has also revealed the Bible to me and to others. I have a personal relationship with God and I'm glad that you have that as well.

But what I object to the most about you, John, and what I have said before several times, is your insults. You accuse me of not being tolerant, inclusive, or unconditionally loving, and yet you have insulted me, my faith, my intelligence, my beliefs, my ordination as a Unity minister, even my relationship with my husband in the discussions we have had over a number of months. Your latest was in reference to my "sock puppet reality". It is for that reason that I have decided that this is the last time I will have a dialogue with you. Blessings to you on your path, John.

Carla,

Do you actually believe God gives a rodent's rear-end what "most theologians" think? Do you actually believe you can consult with ALL "theologians" in your head, and speak for them about such intricate matters? And just what the hell is a "theologian", anyway? Am I not a "theologian" too? Or is that another demonstration of your inclusive thinking, to raise up some class of "experts" to mediate between God and men?

Have you not read, Christ rent that veil, and we may enter ourselves. We don't need "theologians", just humble sincerity and silence within.

First off John, the comment I made was in reference to one called Isis earlier. As for my views about your beliefs versus mine, that is water under the bridge and I am not here to kick a dead horse ... any longer.

As for humans coming up with a concept about their God (and/or god(s) ... note upper case G and lower case g(s) ... as far as I am concerned most all of them have concepts far different than do I ... and I will stay with my own as others may prefer to stay with theirs ... but I have been told by my God or god to "tell others" ... that is all I am doing and that is all I really care about ... if someone else wants to fight and kill over or under their concept of God/god(s) ... that is free agency and what goes around comes around ... their problem not mine.

Jerry,

"tell others" ... that is all I am doing "

Are you telling me God told you the Book is not His Word?

No John, THAT is NOT what I have said ... are you looking for an argument with me ?

I have said just what I have said and little of it here has been addressed at you ... but I do know of what I do say and at the moment change none of it ... as for your "argument" here with Carla, I pretty much agree with everything she has said ... I believe that it is concerned with what I have in the past called the Perennial Philosophy or Wisdom. Most all that have experienced what we have think just "that" way ... and it is VERY INtuitive. Those that know not and thus trust not, their INtuition, cannot "tune in".

Jerry,

And those that know not to distrust their intuition, cannot "tune out".

One is no real use without the other. We are not gods.

as you believe so it is ...

More correctly: As "one" believes so it is for "them" ...

Or even more correctly yet: As "one" believes so it is "for" them ...

Nope. We are not gods. Don't matter what we believe.

I do believe that both men and women are made in the image of God, but I think that women are the prototype and men are the derivative model.

Consider that we all share the X chromosome that women have in duplicate, while only men have the Y chromosome.

Consider that there are species on Earth that at times have only females in their population and reproduce asexually while at other times, times of scarcity, they produce males and breed sexually. There are no species that ever have only males in their population unless they are in their last generation before permanent extinction.

Consider that the female is the one that produces new life. Yes, the male makes a contribution of half the genetic material, but the female does all the major work in this most important of tasks. Remember, in some species as mentioned above, the female does all the work without any male contributiont.

Consider that the female genitalia is not only the road through which the male contribution to new life is delivered and not only the path through which that new life emerges, but it is also the primary source of sexual pleasure for both the male and the female. The fact that pornography and prostitution exist and that women are the focus of both and men the consumers of both, in the vast majority of cases, proves that men desire women more and need the sexual reward they can offer more than women need it from men.

Given all these biological realities, it seems clear to me, quite contrary to the story of Adam and Eve, that women are the first model and men are the adaptation.

Amen to that Rory ... very perceptive of you. But as long as "we" can keep them barefoot and pregnant all is well ... just think what "they" could do to us IF the truth were ever known ... and we all just know that a "Man of God" would never "lie" to the flock.

Rory, I grow more impressed with you by the minute. I think that you have probably had many incarnations as a woman to be as wise and astute as you are. :-) And Jerry, shame on you..."barefoot and pregnant"!

If I were to be confronted by two bowls of vegetable medley, identical but for the presence of one particular variety, say; Lima beans, I would be hard pressed to believe that the one with those little gems, was derived from the one without. But maybe that's just me, I don't like Lima beans.

For a woman to reproduce, it is necessary that she induce a man to do a very special form of "visitation". Therefor, for us to be here, it was vital that women were "attractive" to men. Pleasure is a rather good inducement.

I don't doubt that God could have added male type code to a female type base, after all, if He's God, He made all those other codes anyway. One more would not seem to be a big strain. In the end, He needed both kinds of people, and a very orderly way of getting new ones to pop up, on a continuous basis. It worked!

So, let's just get used to the idea that you can't have it all ways. Some folks is the male type, and some is female. But none of us are gods. None of us could even design a molecule. If God made this universe, I figure He/She/It knows what He's doing. No doubt your wisdom is not alien to God, and your enthusiasm much appreciated though.

just pretending to be a "good ole boy" ... :-)

I could think of worse pretensions.   ; )

Most are caught up in the illusion that the KJV (King James Version) is the "only inspired word of "God".

The truth is that the KJV is only a direct interpretation of the Roman Empire's approved scriptures, carefully composed to control the empire. There are countless ancient scriptures that were destroyed by Rome and under penalty of death, theses scriptures were banned.

All writings that respected "Woman" as the bearer of knowledge and wisdom were searched out and destroyed. The Roman Catholic Church became a tool of control and the protestant reformation was only an extention of the illusion.

The KJV should only be the begining of our search for knowledge and almost every verse shoul be questioned, prayerfully.

Amen to that, Jimmy!

Because Men dominates...