Why is the Goddess Asherah ignored?

I don't mean any disrespect, so if this comes off as ignorant, I apologize, but I was wondering how this fits in, if at all, with what you believe, either as one group or the different groups within Judaism. I'm really just curious. I'm on somewhat of a religious quest right now, and since she was a Semitic deity to begin with, I thought I would go to the source and find out what you all thought or had read/learned/heard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah

 

What does she mean to you?

Are you thinking of incorporating her into your religious/spiritual life?

In what way would you do this?

She is an offense for one obvious reason: the first commandment: Only one God/No other gods before Me.

Did you think there could be some other reason the prophets railed against stuff like this?

"Wisdom"(Chokhma) is feminine in Proverbs(ch.8-9), but I don't see that means we should co-deify her. Do you? She(Wisdom) seems to just want to guide man to "fearing God and keeping the commandments."- which is the last verse of Ecclesiastes(allegedly written by the same guy- Solomon, who had a 1000 wives and concubines and wrote the above mentioned Proverbs/feminine Wisdom).

Can you tell me what she would add to your spiitual life that having one God doesn't?

The Jews have done such a good job of extirpating other gods from it's domain(Judaism) that I have trouble imagining another deity alongside God- even a beautiful Queen of Heaven(if that's what Ashera was)- although something may be up in Kabbalah, but I don't know.
The Catholic church has Mary, but it leaves no impression on me, being so immunized to such stuff.

I don't think Ashera is explicitly said to be a goddess in the Tanakh(O.T.).

What does paganism mean to you? This sounds like it. So yes, I would put Mariolotry(Mary-olatry) in the pagan camp too with Ashera. So I just feel whatever the Prophets felt about this stuff.

 

Is it really that it was said "no other gods" or just "no other gods before me"? I always get that confused. And I am not sure what I plan to DO to incorporate her, but I was raised Christian and am sort of branching out, and yes, leaning toward neopaganism. I thought I would go searching to see if there was a Christian goddess. That is how I found the Semitic goddess, and why I asked the question here. I just wanted to hear peoples' thoughts. The monotheism "jealous god" aspect is an obvious one that I have never really stressed personally, but I guess it should have been obvious.
Thanks for your thoughts.

 

I would recommend a very interesting book, "Eloah, Our Mother In Heaven" by David Bruce Clark. It speaks too all of what's been said here.

 

It literally says: "No be to/for you(sing.) other Elohim on My face".

Why does it matter to you if it says "no other gods" or "just" "no other gods before me"?

The root for "jealous" is KaNaH. It literally means, to acquire/buy.
And it's only referring to Israelites(and now the Jews) who were "acquired" by God by taking them out of Egypt(and "acquired" by the other covenants: the Abrahamic/Mosaic-Sinaitic/"Joshua"/"Ezra" covenants).
Therefore it doesn't apply to any other people or persons other than Israelites/Jews. YOU(a non-Jew?) can acquire other gods I suppose, although I guess I should add that you shouldn't; but- officially- Judaism only cares that humans do good(between man and his fellow man).

 

"juju."

 

Their is also the pre-Christian Godess Astarte

There is a book by Tom Robbins called 'Skinny Legs and All' which has some fascinating essays about his interpretation of the evolution of the worship of Earth Mother into Sky Father (it's a novel and the story isn't that good but the essays are excellent imo)

It's something I would also really like to learn about, that is a fascinating period of history when the Goddess is relegated to the wife of God and then even less. The Greek Goddess Aphrodite is another one that is similarly pronounced, the way we here the novels she is not the Goddess anymore she is more like the rebellious daughter of Sky God (Zeus)

I don't know exactly how accurate it was because I've never researched it, what I have read sounded credible but it is just modern fiction that mentioned it as part of the plot....

Something that stood out for me personally was that this sex change of the creator also coincided with the rise of the European empires and paved the way for the empiricism that still defines European thinking to this day

 

Asherah is part of a goddess complex that includes Astarte, Astoreth, Asher, Aphrodite, and Isis. In other words they were all essentially the same Goddess.

The Goddesses and Gods came from man's earliest beliefs, but the goddess early on was connected to the womb--the source of life, so she obviously was very significant. This was especially when mankind as hunter-gatherer began to gather together in villages and evolve into planter societies. Suddenly man had to work together in groups to assure that the village could eat, and to produce enough surplus that even when the fields were not producing, there was a supply of food. Fertility was everything. The goddess was therefore supreme. She was eternal as the earth is eternal. The god was mortal following the seasons (as does the sky/weather change with the seasons). He would die in the winter, and be reborn in the Spring---this was all by the grace of the goddess who was both mother, lover, and sometimes sister too.

But as man continued to work together, and as institutions grew and evolved, mankind's psyche began to shift from the intuitive side (the feminine aspect of the mind) to the rationalistic side (masculine aspect of the mind). A lot of factors played out in this evolution, including the development of writing, which shaped man to think in a linear fashion. Under the Goddess, women tended to rule society. Harlots (temple prostitutes) were highly respected, as sex was a sacred act. property was handed down through the women, and so forth.

As the masculine shaping forces (e.g. rise of the institution, group thinking, alphabet-based writing systems, etc) grew, and the male's aggressive and hunting instincts once again flexed, the goddess began to lose dominance. First her lover emerged into dominance, and then the male god, in numerous cases, rose to a singular dominance. There was a revolution that was practically global representing a revolt of the masculine against the feminine. In some cases, the male God proved his supremacy by sacrificing himself to himself, and being reborn of himself, proving that the goddess was no longer the keeper of life---this is the story of Jesus, Odhin, and the god of the Rig Veda (Vishnu I believe, but I can't remember for exactly at this moment). The Torah or Old Testament is a story of the fight for the dominance of the male god over the female god (asherah and her consort, Baal).

One impact of this rise of the masculine (defeat of the feminine) is that man largely lost touch with his intuitive side, his subconscious. He became very objective, rationalistic, his world became a duality of black and white, and sex became an evil or dirty thing, good only for having children. Women lost their power, and were treated as property.

But I think that we are evolving, and seeing a new rise of the feminine. The future is one where the masculine and feminine elements of the universe rise together. God will be recognized as, rather than being gender specific, incorporating both aspects of the universe: masculine and feminine.

 

I'm reading The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai.

It's all about the history of the feminine in Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite(Israhebish) history.

He takes the view that the feminine never really left. It was always there in one way or another.

Now it's in the form of Kabbalah. It(Kabbalah) has a goddess image, the Matronit, whose wifehood to both God and man brings "Kabbalists" nearer to God than they could ever get to a lone, patriarchal, male godhead.

He explains that the reason Ashera was dropped("ignored" as you say) is that we(i.e. "Kabbalists") are "now" more sophisticated and want a more philosophical goddess, as opposed to the unsophisticated(and sometimes grotesque) terra-cota figuirines(holding breasts;with horns;snakes,goggle-eyed,etc.) and [Bronze-Age] "philosophies" of the Canaanite(and Ancient Israelite) pantheon.

I personally, have no desire for a goddess.
Though I am fascinated by those who do; as I like to understand things I have no "bone" for(like Atheists, "Theodicy"-ists[people that give up on God because of all the suffering in the world]).
To me, God is so obviously "just" the Foundation(the "Rock") of our existence(i.e. closer to us than we could ever imagine) that needing something else(i.e. a Mother Mary/Virgin/Ashera/Astarte/Matrona) accompanying God strikes a total blank in me. I always had the felt feeling that God is more good, kind, loving, caring, closer, compassionate, merciful (and just) than I can ever imagine that that is enough for me. I use terms like "Him", "Father", "He" because that's just the style/custom of the Bible to today, and hence I just use it; but it's not like I imagine or feel a male prescence in any way. To me, God is "just" beyond the most loving mother or the strongest and wisest father, and that(i.e. the alone, One, unique One) is good enough for me.

 

Is that an anthropology book and covers the history of the Semitic goddess, but from a mostly Hebrew perspective? I have one somewhere that I never got to read, and had a title like that. Also I would like to suggest the book, When God was a Woman. That is a good read, very interesting, and well-written.

I do agree with that book though, and think the feminine still exists in all traditions, it is just buried in deeper. That was pointed out a few years ago in that novel, DaVinci Code, I think it was called, that became a best seller and a movie.

I don't think that mainstream religion would ever easily except a Goddess to accompany a God in the West. So when I speak of a rise of both the masculine and feminine, I see a future where God transcends both genders, but inherent in this is the recognition of both masculine and feminine aspects of life. SO God is at the same time both, and neither. Your last paragraph, LAGoff is a good example of such a God. In other words, it is still the same God, it is just our understanding of the universe and God that changes, not God that changes. It is a change religious values, and ethics.

Part of what is happening, I believe is that the guiding philosophy of our culture, postmodernism, which is a reflection of the increasingly fragmented life we are living in our modern world, is both reaching back to that past to seek values that were lost through the Age of Reason and Modernism, and breaking down the duality that has marked the civilization since the dawn of civilization (you could say, since Genesis). The feminine side of the mind is not so prone to the black and white of duality anyway, which would be an aspect of the rise of the feminine. But I see a more fundamental break down taking shape that represents a bigger breakdown of duality as a shift to multiplicity.

This does not mean that we will be polytheistic (in fact, polytheism is more of a Western definition of religion that incorrectly assigns western semantics of the term god to non-western belief systems, and then misunderstands the ontology of most non-western belief systems. you could take your concept of god that you used in your last paragraph, and it apply it to the concept of the ultimate divine essence of just about any belief system, and it would be more correct than the Western concept of polytheism). But it does mean that mankind will progress to a guiding cultural philosophy that psychologically is not focused on duality.

Just think of how fragmented the internet is: here we all are on Hipforums, people connecting from all around the world, into a common point that is extremely eclectic. Hipforums is almost like a lifeform that rather than having one point of consciousness, has all kinds of points of consciosuness so different and extended, it could never have a self-conscious understanding of itself that would come anywhere near representing even a small majority of it. Everytime we log in we are adding, changing and affecting this consciousness, because the true life form is us, not Hipforums, we are that life that creates this pseudo-consciousness. On top of that, at the same time, most of us are logging into other similar structures such as Facebook, Myspace, and so on and so forth. We are each a part of and creating all kinds of pseudo-conscious structures that represents a whole myriad of opinions and beliefs and outlooks.

You might say, 'so what?' Well, for most of us, the internet is already a very big way of interacting with our world. Our impressions are shaped by it, and we shape it with our impressions. At a conscious level, we understand the internet for what it is, simply an electronic web that allows us to connect from our machine (our computer), to machines all around the world through all kinds of other machines. There is no life or consciousness as we nderstand it, simply automated man-made machines. But at a subconscious level, (or as Jung would say, an unconscious level), it is shaping our inner concept of the world in ways we cannot understand. That's part of what postmodernism is all about. And it reflects more than just the web, but the internet has become a huge piece of this.

However, where others see postmodernism as the downfall of civilization into chaos or even post-apocalypic doom, I see it as another step in man's progress into becoming who he truly is fated to be, a whole individual, with a healthy balance of all the parts of his psyche.

This is what I believe a loving god has in store for us, not the doom and destrction of mankind, which has grown out of a dualistic concept of the father god.

(If you have strong opinions on this, please comment also on my new thread about where you think mankind is headed after postmodernism)

 

What forum is your thread on postmodernism Wolf? I'd like to read it.

 

Mountain Valley Wolf, "The Hebrew Goddess" by Raphael Patai is a scholarly book(though easy to read) by-- from his other publications(600 articles, 35 books)-- a serious, dedicated Jew. It was written in 67, with updates in 78 and 90(I have this third enlarged edition with a foreward by Merlin Stone). He's an internationally known anthropologist, Orientalist, and biblical scholar.

Thanks Mountain Valley Wolf for your kind and thoughtful response to my last post.

I feel that it is first and foremost that people find some common ground. What I said in the last paragraph of my last post struck a chord in you.
I'm so glad, because it gives me hope that something similar to this idea of God/Higher Power can put an end to so much friction.

I'd appreciate if you can tell me if you know where else it has been put forward- or if this is the first time you've heard it laid out.
I'm a big fan of hitting hard to the core with a [hard to the core] definition/idea.

Of course, it is not my idea and- unfortunately- I heard it only recently.
A Rabbi David Fohrman gives "hard to the core" audio lectures and he- I think- included this golden nugget in one of them. I based what I said on it.

I wrote:

"To me, God is so obviously "just" the Foundation(the "Rock") of our existence(i.e. closer to us than we could ever imagine) that needing something else(i.e. a Mother Mary/Virgin/Ashera/Astarte/Matrona) accompanying God strikes a total blank in me. I always had the felt feeling that God is more good, kind, loving, caring, closer, compassionate, merciful (and just) than I can ever imagine, and that that is enough for me. I use terms like "Him", "Father", "He" because that's just the style/custom from the Bible till today, and hence, I just use it; but it's not like I imagine or feel a male prescence in any way. To me, God is "just" beyond the most loving mother or the strongest and wisest father, and that(i.e. the alone, One, unique One) is good enough for me."

I wrote "always had the felt feeling that..." because although I just heard the idea laid out recently, I-- and I'm sure a majority of humans-- see God this way intuitively.

I wonder what others think of this, and whether we can "bury the hatchet" with this idea?- or at least among those who believe in a Higher Power.

 

Hi LAGoff, I am glad you appreciated my post. I too am very interested in finding a common ground and believe that we all worship the same God. I have studied various religions for much of my life as I tried to find what I believed. I lived in Asia, and travelled all over the world seeking meaning. I do believe that there is truth in all religions and they are all closer than people realize. Ultimately, they are different because of the different cultural understandings and histories that have shaped them. They all contain the same truths.

But I am also critical of organized religion, because each one is, after all, a man-made institution. As such, they are subject to the politics of power. But I don’t knock people for following an organized religion. If an organized religion is good for one’s soul, then that is great for that person. I personally am more spiritual than religious. I do think everyone should be sincere in their beliefs to themselves. And I think that everyone should realize that there is a common ground within all our beliefs. The Native Americans refer to a future point where all people come together in an understanding that we are all spiritually the same despite those cultural differences, as the closing of the sacred hoop. The hoop refers to the Medicine Wheel, which is 4 colors, based on the 4 directions: black, yellow, red, and white (there are other color variations, but this is an old color scheme). The colors represent the 4 different skin colors of mankind, and what is very interesting is that this tradition goes back before the white man came to this continent.

The concept of God that you have (if this is what you were referring to ‘if I had heard before’) is just like my own concept of God that I developed when I was quite young and struggling with the idea of a vengeful or angry God that we should fear. That to me was not a God of unconditional love. In the East and among indigenous populations, this same concept of God is nameless, because they understand that to name it is to limit it to our human understanding. In the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching it states that the Tao is that which cannot be named. The Lakota (Sioux) word for such a god is Wakan Tanka, which we translate as the ‘Great Spirit.’ A more accurate translation however is the ‘Great Mystery.’ But the one thing we can understand of that great mystery that cannot be named is our own experiences with that same thing you speak of as God.

In my college days, I liked to ask the question, “Where is God?” which then lead into a question of evil. But in these questions, I found that the people I talked to also had pretty much this same concept of God. Numerous philosophers as well, from Plato, all down through the ages, have alluded to such a concept of God. Carl Jung was the son of a minister, and he too questioned the strict vengeful God, and clearly had basically this same concept of God.
Now if you were asking if I had read before of the concept that Judaism or other religions had retained the Goddess in some form or another, that is something that I am sure is out there, but I don’t know for sure if I have read it or not. I am sure I have, I have quite a bit of material on such things.

I am working on several books right now, mostly on related topics (so I can work on one and it helps me with the others too, though one of them is about the stock market and is therefore unrelated, but I could write that one in my sleep. I only have enough of it done to be able to finish if a publisher picks it up). One of the books I have worked on for probably a good 9 years or so and it is about the history of the feminine. The book draws from linguistics, anthropology, spirituality, mythology, and so forth.

In fact a lot of the book is based on some key linguistic roots that are archetypically connected to the feminine, and are common to just about all languages around the world. One of the points of the book was to find that common ground that you spoke of. I think it allows me to trace back an interesting history of man’s religious development, and demonstrates how all religions are built upon earlier precedents, which take us back to a point of common spirituality, language, and origin. The World Tree is another spiritual concept that goes back to this primal spirituality. In the course of researching this book, I found that the feminine is hidden within all traditions. There is an awful lot of symbolism and motif within Christianity that goes back to the Earlier Goddess cults. In fact, I would say that the Romans even revived some of the feminine element to Christianity by making Mother Mary a surrogate goddess, obviously for the purpose of making it more palatable to the pagans for conversion.

Another book I am writing tries to provide a rational model of the universe that incorporates spirit. It is a rational attempt to bridge the gap between science and spirituality. I did reach a point in my own life where I truly questioned whether or not there could be a God. The existential leap of faith to believe in God was just not good enough. I went through a series of synchronicities that would probably be good enough for most people, to believe, but I needed more. Then one night, an unbelievable thing happened, one of those things that if it happened to someone else, I would have said (to myself), “Yeah right, whatever.” But it was something that, unlike the previous synchronicities, I could not explain away as coincidence. In fact it left me with my own physical proof that I could hold and touch. So I then had to reexamine my scientific understanding of the universe and try to figure out just how spirit really fits in. I want it to speak to anyone, regardless of his or her beliefs, and once again, God is that same loving essence to the universe you speak of. The book also re-examines the Mind-Body problem, and I think I provide a much more rational explanation than say Whitehead and the other philosophers.

Both of these books deal with where mankind is heading, after the fall of Postmodernism. But my third book is just about that. It really explores the breakdown of duality and so forth---some of what I have touched upon here.




Fairlight, My thread on what comes after Postmodernism is located under Ethics, which is located under Philosophy and Religion, the same category as this one. I have not yet shared my beliefs on what I see as the next step in our culture. In that particular thread I am just trying to collect everyone else’s opinion on the subject. But I will share it. I share bits and pieces of my philosophy under a lot of my posts.

 

I have my own ideas on the "feminine". I don't think its any more/or less soft, loving, compassionate merciful, hard, fierce, strong, judgemental than the "masculine".

So when I talked about the new way I hope I and others will see God, I didn't mean that this is a more "feminine" way to see God.
For me, the God in the Tora, AS PORTRAYED IN THE TORA, is a combination of all the traits that we(i.e. some, not me) associate with one sex or another. I see God in the Tanakh as simply God(not male or female OR a combination).
God does wipe out many for seeming small infractions, but you have to understand the big picture.
I wrote in my blog what I see as this big picture(LAGoff.livejournal.com; see the latest entry on it).

You wrote: "But the one thing we can understand of that great mystery that cannot be named is our own experiences with that same thing you speak of as God."

I hope "we" have this same experience/view of "It" as I spoke of(I'll have to ask my local "pagan" if they do).

I've always been impressed by Chinese/Taoist/Zen ability to not name the great mystery, but I'm glad my religion does: "The Lord(YHWH) Lord(YHWH) God(El) Compassionate and Gracious, Slow to Anger, and Abundant in Kindness and Truth, Preserver of Kindness for thousands of generations, Forgiver of Iniquity, Willful Sin, and Error..."(Exodus 34:6).

This occured after Moses BROKE the first covenant; so these are the new TERMS(the laws/commandments remain the same) of the new covenant, which replaced the severer, harsher, less forgiving, more intense TERMS of the old covenant(which was BROKEN). We are under these new TERMS, not the old ones.

So I'm glad "Judaism" "names" names and attributes and involves a named, attributed Great Mystery/God in a long story to help me lead my life(I tried the Chinese/Tao-Te-Ching/Zen/Zen-Buddhist way, and it left me cold- i.e. I wasn't able to hold the "dried shit-stick" of the zen masters or Lao-Tse's cold, ghostly(cloud hidden whereabouts unknown) constructions close to my heart. Hinduism? Couldn't get past that monkey god. Christianity? I like one God, not 2 or 3(schizophrenia, bi/duophrenia/triophrenia, and now with Mary in heaven since 1950, quadrophenia). Islam? Koran too strident, monotonish. American Indians/Shamanism/Wicca? I'm drawing a blank(maybe because they are matriarchal?).

Anyway, thanks for being there and contributing/responding in the way that you do to this forum and me.

 

LAGoff I read your blog, and found it very interesting and insightful, I have some thoughts on that which are kind of related to this thread, but I will post a little bit here. But I did enjoy your blog. I only read the latest entries, but I intend to find time to read the older ones as well.

The feminine god is not necessarily more or less soft/loving compassionate. Even if we look back at the old goddess cults you find everything from the sweet mother motif to the angry old woman motif.

I can understand that your concept of God is not more feminine, more loving, more hateful, or whatever, and that you want to stick with the image of God from the Torah. Likewise, when I speak of an unconditionally loving god that is transcendent (and thereby includes both masculine and feminine elements of the universe), I say that from the perspective of an ethical nihilist. By that, I mean that I see the values of good and bad, right and wrong, etc as human values, based on our 3-dimensional reality. As humans those values are very real, and the choices we make on them will impact our lives, happiness, that of other people, and ultimately lives we have beyond this one. But these values are limited to our reality, and what I believe is our purpose in life—to experience.

God is the big picture, and understands our true selves, which exists beyond the three dimensions. From our perspective, death is a finality; from God’s perspective, death is just another step in our individual journeys. Yet from that perspective he is as you quoted, “Compassionate and Gracious, Slow to Anger, and Abundant in Kindness and Truth, Preserver of Kindness for thousands of generations, Forgiver of Iniquity, Willful Sin, and Error..."

After reading your blog, from my perspectives and experience, I would say that the harsher more severe terms under the first covenant, were more harsh and severe under our perspective, because they dealt with God at his terms. This is because God would have been interacted with on a more 1-on-1 personal level. The implication of this for me is that organized religion perhaps provides a buffer that you don’t have with mystical practices or indigenous spirituality. Another implication is that such a 1-on-1 relationship requires a spiritual maturity, because of the power that involves. These are things that occurred to me after reading your blog, and which adds understanding to some of the stories I have heard, and my perspectives on spirituality.

Oh yes—I should probably clarify that I believe we all experience the same god, but we each experience God from our own perspective. If you spoke with your local pagan, they may describe a God that on the surface, could seem largely different from your experience of it. But if you dig past the individual perspectives and perceptions then you should find the same God. Assuming of course that your local pagan is sophisticated enough to understand that the ultimate power of the universe cannot literally have breasts, just as it wouldn’t literally have a phallus.

The rise of the feminine is not a change of who or what is god, it is a change within us. Though granted, it will change the way some people see God, but like I said above, I would think that is largely a surface thing, deep down it is always the same God. More importantly, this is a change that will primarily affect our values and ethics. It is already taking place as an aspect of Postmodernism. I am referring to the break down of duality, or as Postmodernists say, binary opposites. But what this really means to us is a break down of the ego-shadow complex that consists of an inflated ego in the conscious mind and its subconscious counterpart, and equally inflated, shadow. I see this as part of a process of maturity towards, if not a deeper relationship with God, then at least a less dysfunctional society that is more conducive to individual self realization.

So it appears that you have explored a bit and have found that the Jewish faith is the one that fits you. I commend you on that, and that is kind of what I meant when I said that people should be sincere to themselves when it comes to belief. Judaism is filled with a lot of great wisdom. Christians lose quite a bit by not understanding their Old Testament in the original Hebrew, and the context of that Hebrew.

I have trouble with Buddhism and Hinduism. I suspect that Eastern meditation was an attempt to regain that spiritual experience of the soma-eaters, long after such practices were lost. Meditation is powerful and a great tool, but I believe it lacks some of power of the original shamanistic soma eaters as what you find in the Rig Veda. Even more so is the goal of, what I call a singularity (like a black hole), i.e. trying to merge one’s soul with the universe. I believe that we are individuals for a good reason, so we should not be so anxious to merge it back into the universe. They have a very good point in regards to the ego, but I believe that we have a whole self that is multidimensional, and it is the ego that limits our ability to perceive such. BUT this whole self is still an individual, and even though the basis of each of our individual selves is the universe or cosmic consciousness, or God, we should embrace that individuality.

I think that the Eastern religions miss this point for several reasons: 1.) They have a very long planter society tradition steeped in the group ethic. 2.) There are large population centers in the East where humanity is oppressively concentrated, not too mention the economic problems of the masses of such concentrated populations. 3.) I believe that the mystical experience, from my own version of a Jungian psychological perspective represents turning off the ego filter to allow the contents of the subconscious to enter the conscious mind. I believe this is different from the shamanic (or in the Hindu case, the soma eater) perspective in that, in the latter case, the ego-filter is opened to allow the conscious mind to enter into and explore the subconscious. 4.) This is part of how the manipulative elements of the institution of Hinduism was developed to keep the upper light-skinned castes in power over the darker-skinned lower castes. Amazing how politically easy it must be to rule people if they are made to believe that they must be very good in this life, so that they can rise higher in the next life.

The nameless God of Taoism is not hard for me to relate to—it is that God that lies within everything when I go into the forests and mountains for spiritual solace. But the Taoism of Lao Tsu is on the philosophical side of Taoism. The Chinese Taoist experiences the presence of all sorts of Gods, and even one’s ancestors. Though again, these are not ‘the God’ as we understand in the West. The God that is not named is the one that would equate to our God, they just understand that this God manifests in all kinds of ways that we as humans can understand and relate to—such as a Kitchen God, a set of gods that guard the temples, a god for this, a god for that, etc. In fact, this is true for all polytheistic faiths. Hinduism for example has only one ultimate God that would compare with the Western God, all the others are individual manifestations of that God. Since you have trouble with the Monkey God, a Hindu would say, ‘…that’s why we have a blue skinned God, or a Black-skinned Goddess, or a…’ In other words, you can’t please all the people all the time, so the Hindus manifest god in all kinds of ways. One sect has even adopted Jesus as another manifestation—it really is a very powerful political tool (just like when you go into an Indian shop: “You don’t like that statue? Well let me show you this one, and over here I have a whole bunch more. Find one you like…”)

Wicca is another story. Unfortunately Christianity has destroyed much of the old ways that were handed down from the European shamanism of the Paleolithic and Neolithic. The church vilified the witches and others who had such knowledge, and they were said to be of the devil. Satan worship is really a creation of the church. Wicca however is an attempt to regain those old ways. Unfortunately since much of it was lost, it was based on many assumptions, and where assumptions could not be made, fabrications. But again, if someone sincerely uses Wicca as their connection to spirit, and they have found power through it, I respect that. I believe the universe is spirit and through intention and respect we can all make that connection. But I think that people should be true to themselves in what they believe. If deep down they are only doing wicca because they think it is cool, or they are rebelling, or showing off, and that they really believe more along the lines of Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, or whatever, then they should stop screwing around and pursue that. While if a Christian, Hindu, or whatever deep down believes more along the lines of Wicca, they should pursue that. Personally for me, I have trouble with a belief system that was created with assumptions and fabrications.

I find a lot of inconsistencies with Christianity and feel that there was a lot of political influences in Rome that shaped the Church into more of a political tool typical of Indo-European belief systems. I find that theologians and rabbis tend to be far more wise than many Christian priests and ministers. Part of the problem must be that the Old Testament was taken out of the original Hebrew and the New Testament out of the original Greek, and thereby a fair amount of context was lost. But Christianity was not meant to be a political tool for the Jewish people, nor even for the Greeks. It was meant to unify everyone under the Roman Empire.

Indigenous spirituality (such as the Native American ways) is again, that kind of polytheism I discussed above under Buddhism and Hinduism. I differentiate it from religion in that it lacks the institutional aspects of organized religion. It does not even break life down into a secular and non-secular, sacred and non-sacred, aspects. Though granted, in the Southwestern US you started to see a religious structure develop in the planter societies and you can certainly argue for an actual religion among the Mayans, Aztecs, and so forth. Indigenous spirituality certainly has more of a 1-on-1 individualized relationship with God and spirit, and, being nature-based, it is once again that experience of God I have going into the forests and mountains, and nature. There are little in the way of codes and rules, but there is a lot of power in this relationship, and such power has taboos associated with it. My perspective is that it is the kind of relationship with God that you spoke of before Moses broke the first covenant. In the sweat lodges, sundances, and other ceremonies, you can see power. God is there to help you, heal you, guide you—answer your prayers. But if you fool around, or approach it with bad will, it will snap back and bite you. It is all part of the balance of the universe.

 

Quote: "Indigenous spirituality certainly has more of a 1-on-1 individualized relationship with God and spirit, and, being nature-based, it is once again that experience of God I have going into the forests and mountains, and nature. There are little in the way of codes and rules, but there is a lot of power in this relationship, and such power has taboos associated with it. My perspective is that it is the kind of relationship with God that you spoke of before Moses broke the first covenant. In the sweat lodges, sundances, and other ceremonies, you can see power. God is there to help you, heal you, guide you—answer your prayers. But if you fool around, or approach it with bad will, it will snap back and bite you. It is all part of the balance of the universe.[/QUOTE]

Thanks again for the wonderful response. I find you the most intelligent/game responder to any forum thread I've encountered- maybe because I'm- hopefully- finally ready to dialogue with intelligent/game forum/discussion partners.

"That experience of God going into the rain forest" I would not call that experiencing God, only His creation.
For example, I would say a blessing(because Jewish Law commands me to) over the wonder and beauty of the rain forest and being able to so intensely experience God's creation. That would be a relation/experience within the Covenant. Likewise, the feeling that there is a "compassionate, gracious, abundant in kindness and truth..."(Exodus 34) God around is because "the 'Bible' tells me so". Without it I can't say how I'd see/experience God.
Maybe I got you wrong. It seems you worship "the spirit"/"spirit"(and call that God). But I would call "the spirit"/"spirit" simply the feeling that a part of the creation gets when it merges into the whole of creation. It would be interesting if I ever take a strong psychedelic drug(like DMT- "The Spirit Molecule") and see if I could keep conscious of God beyond the strong merging of a part of creation(i.e. me) with creation as a whole, or if I would surrender to the awesomeness of the experience and forget to say a blessing to the Creator of such an awesome creation. Likewise with death for a Jew: will I be able to say the Shema("... God is one") when I die(Jewish Law) or get caught up with the awesomeness of this particular- albeit very "spirited"- aspect of creation.

As far as intensity/first covenant? I don't know. But I do feel that a shaman/DMT user/Yogi who experiences intensely can be further from "God" than a shlub in Brooklyn who does his less-intensely religious Jewish thing. Judaism, compared to such pyrotechnics of the "spirit", is often given a bad rap; but I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this, and if I misinterpreted what you said.

 

Thank you LaGoff for your compliments, and I find you to also be very intelligent and interesting as well. I certainly enjoy interracting with you. I do apologize that I haven't gotten back to you since your last post. I have been extremely busy the past month or two, and just haven't had much time to get onto the hip forums. I did read your last post sometime ago and started writing a response, give me some time to finish it and I will post it.