Prehistoric Goddess worship?

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think that's just a little on the general side, Susma. You may want to acquaint yourself with more Jewish people. They don't all vote for Ariel Sharon, you know.

Point well taken, and I will be guided accordingly. Thanks.

Susma Rio Sep

[bananabrain]

Honestly, Banana, the God of your people is a macho God, not a muchaha Goddess.

with all due respect, susma, i don't see how you are possibly in a position to make authoritative statements about the gender of the Divine. now i am prepared to concede that this may very well be your *opinion*, but it certainly isn't ours. and furthermore, it isn't really your place to tell me what i believe, as far as i know, unless when i signed up to this site i agreed to it in the terms and conditions.

And without offense, [] and His worshippers are possessed of a machiste psychology. Right?

give me some specific examples and i might be able to dignify this with a response. otherwise, it's a blanket assertion and a pretty rude one at that. saying "without offense" doesn't remove offensiveness. and while you're at it, i'd prefer it if you didn't try and spell out that particular Divine Name.

They don't all vote for Ariel Sharon, you know.

and what the arsing feck does fat arik have to do with this, precisely? one's opinion about him is not reliable indicator of anything we're talking about here. many perfectly reasonable people voted for him out of sheer desperation because he told them he'd give them "peace with security". i don't believe he's managed anything much so far apart from making israel more unpopular than it's been since 1967, but if you're at all interested in israeli politics, i suggest you read http://www.haaretzdaily.com - they're generally considered a pretty balanced bunch.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear Banana:

No animosity from my side. My interest is purely academic.

You are the authority of course of what Jews believe and how they address God.

On the other hand, since we are here not only Jews but also adherents of other religions, and even people without any but still claiming to be religious in a way, like yours truly, I think it is all right for us to use the name of God the way the name has been used for two thousand years by Christians, namely: God.

Since you know the Old Testament and its language I presume, Hebrew or some version of it, may I inquire with due respect but just the same on academic grounds whether in the Hebrew of the Old Testament God is assigned the male or female or neuter gender. I know that in Latin and in Greek he is assigned the male gender.

Susma Rio Sep

[bananabrain]

I think it is all right for us to use the name of God the way the name has been used for two thousand years by Christians, namely: God.

that is perfectly OK, but it can sometimes raise issues (people going "oh, that's male, what about goddess?") that i don't consider are actually issues - this is why i use the term G!D to indicate a concept that the english language doesn't cope with all that well. my issue is with the english transliteration of a particular Divine Name that we do not *ever* try and pronounce for many extremely complicated and technical reasons and because of that i respectfully request that you just type "God" instead (if you're not happy typing "G!D").

may I inquire ...whether in the Hebrew of the Old Testament God is assigned the male or female or neuter gender. I know that in Latin and in Greek he is assigned the male gender.

there isn't a neuter gender in biblical hebrew - non-gendered words are rendered using the masculine, which is not considered by us to thereby render them male-gendered. the *sense* of the Name is a more reliable indicator of the attribute being referred to. whether, of course, that attribute is necessarily to be considered male or female by human beings is up to them. thus, with us, the nominally "female" aspects are quite often the harsh, judgemental, warlike ones and just to prevent simplification, the ones involving breasts and wombs are often, if i remember correctly, classed as masculine aspects. the whole point is to try and make one relinquish the tendency to try and genderise the Infinite Divine. gender limits us to a (usually) binary view of the Infinite and this is not acceptable to us if, as we believe, All Is One.

in the prayer liturgy, the Divine is addressed in both masculine and feminine language-forms, depending on what is being said, which is generally enough to keep one on one's toes.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that is perfectly OK, but it can sometimes raise issues (people going "oh, that's male, what about goddess?") that i don't consider are actually issues - this is why i use the term G!D to indicate a concept that the english language doesn't cope with all that well. my issue is with the english transliteration of a particular Divine Name that we do not *ever* try and pronounce for many extremely complicated and technical reasons and because of that i respectfully request that you just type "God" instead (if you're not happy typing "G!D").


there isn't a neuter gender in biblical hebrew - non-gendered words are rendered using the masculine, which is not considered by us to thereby render them male-gendered. the *sense* of the Name is a more reliable indicator of the attribute being referred to. whether, of course, that attribute is necessarily to be considered male or female by human beings is up to them. thus, with us, the nominally "female" aspects are quite often the harsh, judgemental, warlike ones and just to prevent simplification, the ones involving breasts and wombs are often, if i remember correctly, classed as masculine aspects. the whole point is to try and make one relinquish the tendency to try and genderise the Infinite Divine. gender limits us to a (usually) binary view of the Infinite and this is not acceptable to us if, as we believe, All Is One.

in the prayer liturgy, the Divine is addressed in both masculine and feminine language-forms, depending on what is being said, which is generally enough to keep one on one's toes.

b'shalom

bananabrain

...in the prayer liturgy, the Divine is addressed in both masculine and feminine language-forms, depending on what is being said, which is generally enough to keep one on one's toes.

...which is generally enough to keep one on one's toes.

I was sure, Banana, you do have a sense of sardonic humor.

Best regards,

Susma Rio Sep

[bananabrain]

i may do, but i think your point nonetheless escapes me.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i may do, but i think your point nonetheless escapes me.

b'shalom

bananabrain

You write:

...in the prayer liturgy, the Divine is addressed in both masculine and feminine language-forms, depending on what is being said, which is generally enough to keep one on one's toes.

You see, for me humor can also consist in the clash between the solemn and the earthy.

The prayer liturgy is solemn, switching back and forth from masculine to feminine in addressing the sublime is awkward; and you thus observe in some kind of conclusion that the exercise is generally enough to keep one on one's toes: the mental incompatibility you discern and represent with the physical discomfort of standing on one's toes.

For me, your conclusion indicates sardonic humor on your part in rounding up the clash between the solemnity of prayer liturgy and the awkward character of the sublime being addressed both alternately in the masculine and in the feminine language-forms.

I guess others will not see any sardonic humor there; and you might not be aware of how your words might appear to people like me.

Susma Rio Sep

[bananabrain]

susma, i'm not aware of feeling any awkwardness when i use the liturgical forms. i think you're drawing conclusions based on bunch of *your* assumptions - *again* rather than my inner experience of the text and language, which - unless i miss my guess - you're not actually familiar with.

sheesh.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

and what the arsing feck does fat arik have to do with this, precisely? one's opinion about him is not reliable indicator of anything we're talking about here.

My point was merely to indicate that Judaism is perhaps a little more diverse than the far-right picture that Susma appeared to be painting in his earlier post.

[bananabrain]

harrumph.

if you think fat arik is far-right you should see some of the maniacs they have in the knesset. and far-left, too - not that either of these words have any meaning in the israeli political context.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear Banana:

There must be corresponding kinds of Jews to kinds of Christians.

Christians are divided into various segments on the basis of strength and depth of commitment: from very liberal to very fundamentalist.

Then among Christians there are those who are like me, still retaining the habits of Christianity but not a measure of commitment that should earn them a choice place in the Kingdom.

There are even atheist Christians, meaning they don't believe in God, but they celebrate Christmas, St. Valentine's Day, go for church wedding and reigious burial.

In that range from liberal to fundamentalism and even atheism at one end to fanaticism at the opposite end, among Jews, where would you put yourself?

More specifically, do you believe that the Jews are the chosen people of God, and that you being one is chosen by God, and therefore heir to His promises?

Susma Rio Sep

[bananabrain]

susma,

there are indeed many kinds of jews, but they do not necessarily correspond to different types of christian, because we have a different history, a different set of paradigms and have developed in different ways because of this. perhaps a decent method of classification/typology would be along the following dimensions:

1. acceptance of the "13 principles" of maimonides (in some form, maybe not his exact wording etc)
2. acceptance of the binding nature of halacha and the halachic process
3. synagogue membership
4. philosophy
5. degree of religious observance
6. ethnic background
7. national acculturation
8. attitude to "Torah min ha-shamayim" (or "Torah from heaven")
9. attitude to ritual
10. attitude to zionism and the state of israel
11. aspirations for the future of the israel/palestine problem
12. attitude to the esoteric/mystical tradition

in these terms, i could categorise myself as:

1. accepting of the traditional principles (although not necessarily as worded by maimonides)
2. accepting the binding nature of halacha and its process, although not necessarily agreeing with the opinions held by the power-players in this world at the present time
3. belonging to a "masorti" UK synagogue for various 'political' reasons to do with my family and the UK community
4. "post-denominational"/klal yisrael albeit with a reasoned traditionalist bias
5. on a scale of 0 (doesn't know the names of festivals) to 10 (black-hat ultra-orthodox) about 6.5
6. iraqi/kurdish/french/irish
7. ethno-british education in mainstream society, floating voter, active citizen
8. that's the most convincing explanation i have yet heard
9. mnemonic/mystical
10. good zionist education via youth movements, educated criticism
11. two-state with religious coexistence, mutual respect, security, trade, cooperation, probably not likely for at least another couple of decades
12. deep commitment

clear as mud?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Susma Rio Sep]

But there are atheist Jews, i.e., who don't believe in any God, and don't believe in and don't observe the Sabbath; and they don't believe that Jews are the chosen people of God or Jaweh, meaning they don't believe in any kind of chosen people of any God.

You are not one of them. You believe in Jaweh, you believe in the Jews or your people being the chosen people of God, you believe in observing the Sabbath. You are different from the Jews described above.

Now, the atheist Jews, they might be ethnocentric but purely on their identity as a people, not on the religion of their fellow "ethno-pat"
Jews who are faithful to Jaweh and keep their religious observances faithfully.


Susma Rio Sep

[bananabrain]

indeed susma, but these atheist jews, from the traditionalist end of the religious dimensions described above, would not be considered any less jewish, although perhaps they would be considered heretics, apostates, self-haters, assimilationists or whatever. where one stands on the various dimensions determines one's attitudes. however, i think i am not following your point again.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

indeed susma, but these atheist jews, from the traditionalist end of the religious dimensions described above, would not be considered any less jewish, although perhaps they would be considered heretics, apostates, self-haters, assimilationists or whatever. where one stands on the various dimensions determines one's attitudes. however, i think i am not following your point again.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Here is my point, Banana:

Jews who are atheists are described above in somewhat negative labels -- of course according to the peculiar attitudes of theistic Jews.

Will you one day become one, an atheistic or just an agnostic Jew, after you see the light which they have seen, and then not describe them and then yourself by that time in the somewhat negative labels used in the citation above -- of couse I am not saying that you do, just that if you in fact do have the kind of attitude toward them that inclines you to use those labels?

A personal question, if I may, wouldn't you be more free if you should be liberated from your present religious convictions?


Susma Rio Sep