Prehistoric Goddess worship?

[bananabrain]

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

well, yes, but you have to understand that these are the more extreme terms. for example, i could myself be described by them by the sort of people who are accustomed to viewing diversity as threatening. one of the things about halacha is that it has been codified into 613 commandments, 248 positive ("thou shalt") and 365 negative ("thou shalt not") and whether one fulfils them or not can easily be used as a yardstick by simplistic thinkers. the point is that only G!D can tell whether a given action or forbearance is *ultimately and objectively* "right" or "wrong". all we can ever do is make an educated guess. it is also undeniable that being rude or prejudiced about people who may not deserve it is a sin in itself.

Will you one day become one, an atheistic or just an agnostic Jew, after you see the light which they have seen

you see, the way you put that assumes that they are right to be atheistic/agnostic and i am wrong not to be. it's these kind of remarks which get up religious people's noses, that we're basically benighted, deluded, backwards barbarians or something. look, i don't misunderstand what they believe, you know; i've come from a non-traditional background and i'm perfectly familiar with a wide range of attitudes, some of which i used to share. i just think that the traditional way makes more sense and addresses the questions better and have therefore chosen to try and live my life in accordance with this. however, it is not consequently for me to go and make miserable the lives of those who disagree with me; i can respect their qualities and aspirations without respecting their conclusions - nor am i obliged to admit that they are correct, even if i think it is wrong to describe them in offensive and counterproductive terms. it is possible to respectfully disagree.

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

again, you're phrasing it in terms of "what if you quit beating your wife?" - freedom *from* is different from freedom *to*. in common with many non-religious (and religious) jews, i don't think you understand the point of religious judaism. in contrast to what you may believe, my beliefs and practices liberate me. do you have to go into the office on saturdays? i don't. can you guarantee absolutely, 100% of the time, what time you will be home on friday night? i can. for 25 hours a week and various other days during the year, i am completely liberated from work. can you say the same?

b'shalom

bananabrain

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Susma Rio Sep

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

Susma Rio Sep, it should not be acceptable to question another's belief here on comparative-religion.com, excepting where it may lead to illuminating discussion to the benefit of both parties.

In this instance, it looks as if it leads to derogatory judgement, which could be perceived as injurous to one.

I would ask you courteously to think carefully about your posting, and ensure that where you question beliefs, you do so with the sensitives of those you offer questions to in mind. That is what this site is for.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Susma Rio Sep, it should not be acceptable to question another's belief here on comparative-religion.com, excepting where it may lead to illuminating discussion to the benefit of both parties.

In this instance, it looks as if it leads to derogatory judgement, which could be perceived as injurous to one.

I would ask you courteously to think carefully about your posting, and ensure that where you question beliefs, you do so with the sensitives of those you offer questions to in mind. That is what this site is for.

Thanks, Brian, I will be guided accordingly.

And you are doing a good job.

Best regards,

Susma Rio Sep

[Nogodnomasters]

The standard explanation of the goddess comes from the miracle of child birth. Women gave birth to children and so a goddess worship was initiated. When it was discovered the male was involved, they made her a consort who was also her father or creator. The breaking of water was associated with child birth so many times these goddesses were associated with the sea.

Another explanation is that all those statues of nude pregnant women is nothing more than ancient pornography.

In the Caananite religion Ashera was the consort of Jehovah. She received some honorable mentions in the Old Testament, but never made it to the goddess level.

From my own research the goddess would have to center around the constellation Virgo, although not limit exclusively to Virgo. Virgo is placed at the time of harvest. Ceres, from which we get the word Cereal is a classic example. This goddess would become the consort of the solar god located in Leo, where the summer solstice existed in ancient times. They are joined at the star Sarcam, the tail of Leo and head of Virgo. In Babylon she would be the consort of gods and a virgin of mortal men. She was both a Holy Whore and a Virgin, a dualism which eventually translate into two separte people by the time of the New Testament (Mary and Mary).

The consort of Adam, taken from his rib in the OT was originally nameless in my research. Adam or man was kicked out of the Eden and he took a separate wife. The woman was never kicked out, although it is cleared the text was later doctored to indicate it was.

Under the influence of Babylon, Adam's consort was named Lilith. The word is derived from the Babylonian-Assyrian word "lilitu" meaning a "female demon or wind spirit." She appears on as early as 2000 BC in Sumeria as "Lillake." She was never formally added to OT texts and only survived as a legend into Hebrew midrashes.

Eve was added to the OT under the influence of the Hittites. She was based on their goddess Heba, who is typically depicted as riding on a lion (Leo/Adam). She was equated to Anath and Ishtar both and worshipped in Jerusalem in the 14th century BCE.

[Susma Rio Sep]

Dear Nogod:

Thanks for your very informative post above. Most posts on this topic of ancient goddesses and artifacts about them are rather very abstrusely composed -- my experience in trying to make sense of them, owing to my limited intelligence, most probably. You have written with customary acquaintance and even authority from personal investigation, research, consideration. And you have expounded so as to be understandable to common folks like the undersigned. Thanks.

I have the suspicion that a lot of figurines about goddesses in the ancient Middle East are actually naughty representations of pornographic prurience: like those big fat women with very small little men clinging like mites to them.

Tell me more about ancient pornography which might not be as damnable as today in our puritanized civilization, though everyday getting to be more and more de-prudish-ised.

Congratulations.

Susma Rio Sep

[Nogodnomasters]

I am not sure where to start. The question might be asked to define pornography. Perhaps ancient erotica might be a better title.

Religion and sex were very much combined. Are the Songs of Solomon erotic? The Babylonian religious texts tended to be erotic:

‘As for me, Inanna,
Who will plow my vulva!
Who will plow my high field!
Who will plow my wet ground!

‘As for me, the young woman,
Who will plow my vulva!
Who will station the ox there!
Who will plow my vulva!’

“Dumuzi replied:

‘Great Lady, the king will plow your vulva.
I, Dumuzi the King, will plow your vulva.”

“Inanna:

‘Then plow my vulva, man of my heart!
Plow my vulva!’

‘He shaped my loins with his fair hands,
The shepherd Dumuzi filled my lap with cream and milk,
He stroked my pubic hair, He watered my womb.
He laid his hands on my holy vulva,
He smoothed my black boat with cream,
He quickened my narrow boat with milk,
He caressed me on the bed.

‘Now I will caress my high priest on the bed,
I will caress the faithful shepherd Dumuzi,
I will caress his loins, the shepherdship of the land,
I will decree a sweet fate for him.’”

These were brother and sister. Dumuzi was the autumn sacrifice. From my own personal research -Astroloically he would be the same as Uriah in the star Antares, and Inanna would be Bethsheba a star in Sagittarius located at the top of the bow.

I am not sure of the need for graphic pornography. Nudity would be common. Families lived in single room dwellings and parents had many children- you do the math.

Prostitution was very common. Women worked as prostitutes to serve their god/goddess and collect money for the temple. Some cultures required this such as the Amorites. Tamar was of that culture.

The Egyptian celebration of Bast was erotic. From Herodutus:

When the people are on their way to Bubastis, they go by river, a great number in every boat, men and women together. Some of the women make a noise with rattles, others play flutes all the way, while the rest of the women, and the men, sing and clap their hands. As they travel by river to Bubastis, whenever they come near any other town they bring their boat near the bank; then some of the women do as I have said, while some shout mockery of the women of the town; others dance, and others stand up and lift their skirts. They do this whenever they come alongside any riverside town. But when they have reached Bubastis, they make a festival with great sacrifices, and more wine is drunk at this feast than in the whole year besides. It is customary for men and women (but not children) to assemble there to the number of seven hundred thousand, as the people of the place say.

The passion play evolved from the rites of Osirus (sorry Mel- you are not the first) and so did the rites of Dionysis according to Aristotle. He also claimed this was were Greek plays originated.

I have done research on their origins which seem to pop up around 1900 BCE. My speculationis that after the Great Famine of 2350-2200 people had the idea to eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die culture or attitude. This idea would culminate into a big orgy which was held away from town out in the woods. Those who did not particiapate liked to watch and they would follow the performers into the woods and watch the "play."

When we start to discuss phallic symbols the discussion is endless, likewise with the Yoni.

[Archangel]

Interesting topic. Why wouldn't there exist a matriarchal society in ancient times? After all, isn't it the female who not only births, but is the one whose genetic characteristics are most passed onto their descendents?

It was perhaps the advent of industrialization that gave way to a patriarchal society. Men...the builders and creators. Perhaps even the "Creator" himself?

It is said that in this world females bleed and contend and subsiquently are weaker in some ways. However, in a paradisical world (Heaven), they do not bleed and contend and are in fact equal in strengths...even perhaps a bit stronger.

No wonder more women are into Religion and more men are somewhat "bah-humbug" about it.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Archangel

Interesting topic. Why wouldn't there exist a matriarchal society in ancient times? After all, isn't it the female who not only births, but is the one whose genetic characteristics are most passed onto their descendents?

It's not so much a contention of "if" as to "how much". I'm sure I've read of a handful of small aboriginal matriarchal societies making their way into the 20th century.

However, the idea that humanity at some time (the Mesolithic at least, though preferably the Neolithic period) was in majority matriarchial, simply doesn't argue very well.

Yes, I can see evidence of some matriarchial organisation, and there are even hints in legends of this.

However, there remains the very real danger of some people seeing nothing more than a heavily romantised Golden Age of motherly Peace and womanly Prosperity.

[bananabrain]

leaving aside nogodnomasters' thing about everything being astrological, (which isn't going to help here as we disagree strongly) he makes a lot of observations which illustrate the things that underpin the general OT attitude to "idolatry", "heathens" or however you translate the hebrew terms that refer to the traditions and groups concerned.

Prostitution was very common. Women worked as prostitutes to serve their god/goddess and collect money for the temple. Some cultures required this such as the Amorites.

men were required to do this too in some cults. this custom (and that of human, especially child sacrifice) is particularly offensive to judaism (and, i would have thought, moderns; we're in no sense talking some kind of hippy free love here) - i would hope it is obvious why. it was the tendency of the biblical israelites, led by their kings, to indulge in just these kinds of disgusting acts that incurred the wrath of G!D via the prophets on many occasions. it's not by any means about non-jews per se, it's about people who do stuff that we really, really disapprove of. the seven nations of canaan and so on were the prime offenders in this respect.

Tamar was of that culture.

i'd be interested to know where this is from. is this about who her grandfather talmai of geshur was? was geshur an amorite city? however, the episode of amnon and tamar makes no reference that i can see to this kind of behaviour.

It was perhaps the advent of industrialization that gave way to a patriarchal society. Men...the builders and creators.

hmmm. i don't think industrialisation has anything to do with it. agricultural societies could be just as patriarchal.

No wonder more women are into Religion and more men are somewhat "bah-humbug" about it

this doesn't make sense if so much of religion is so patriarchal!

However, the idea that humanity at some time (the Mesolithic at least, though preferably the Neolithic period) was in majority matriarchial, simply doesn't argue very well.

no, indeed.

However, there remains the very real danger of some people seeing nothing more than a heavily romanticised Golden Age of motherly Peace and womanly Prosperity.

hence my comment above about the BBITS and the BTITE. an adult conception of the spiritual does not require this immature dualism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Nogodnomasters]

Tamar means "palm tree" which was sacred to the love and birth goddess Isis or Ishtar among the Arabs. Arabians worshipped the great palm of Nejran by draping it with woman's clothes and ornaments. In the original story, it is suggested by Graves Tamar would have been a sacred prostitute unrelated to Judah. She is linked to Rahab by mention of the scarlet thread. Was she a definite Amorite? No, but most likely. I don't need a smoking gun to figure out the killer.

Tamar is said to have the gift of prophecy and knew her seed would be the future messiah. There is a story which claims Potiphar's wife wanted to have twins via Joseph as did Tamar.

Astrologically this story takes place in the Northern Crown which was known as the constellation of the second coming. This accounts for the red thread scene of the odd birth of the twins where the second one is born first. I seriously doubt if one child could stick its hand out, pull it back in and then have the other child pop out first. The womb is not a sack of marbles. I have never seen a discussion on the possibility anywhere.

The crown of the constellation is a symbol for wealth (Shuah). In mythology this constellation belonged to Ariadne, the daughter of King Minos of Crete, whose ball of thread helped Theseus to defeat the Minotaur and escape from the labyrinth and later went with him to Naxos where he deserted her. Dionysus then meets her and takes her as his wife. He places their wedding crown in heaven. This exquisite circlet of stars looks very much like a crown. One star in this group outshines all the others; situated about halfway along the curve, this star is alpha - Coronae Borealis, Gemma or the Gem Star, also called Alphecca, “the Bright Dish” in ancient Arabia. Arabs and other Eastern people also called this constellation the “Beggar's Bowl” or the “Broken Ring.” The dish or bowl is a symbol of the womb. This would represent Tamar. Her encounter as a street prostitute with Judah would fit the “beggars bowl” aspect.

[bananabrain]

first of all, i've had the wrong end of the stick. you meant the tamar from genesis, i was talking about the tamar who gets raped by amnon in 1 kings. sorry for the confusion.

Tamar means "palm tree" which was sacred to the love and birth goddess Isis or Ishtar among the Arabs. Arabians worshipped the great palm of Nejran by draping it with woman's clothes and ornaments.

that's as may be, but it's a bit tenuous, considering that the symbology of the palm tree within judaism is not necessarily the same. i'd need more than the general theme of "love and birth" - that's not what the Torah account is concerned with. incidentally, a palm tree is "tomer" - "tamar" is a date, but it's still the same link. you might like to look at the story of deborah in judges.

In the original story, it is suggested by Graves Tamar would have been a sacred prostitute unrelated to Judah.

oh, graves, i getcha. however, she waits by a crossroads. i'd expect a *sacred* prostitute to be somewhere else, a temple or a grove (possibly a palm grove even). mind you, the word used for prostitute here is linked to the word used for "holy", so you could well be right.

She is linked to Rahab by mention of the scarlet thread. Was she a definite Amorite? No, but most likely.

but why amorite particularly as opposed to anyone else? that's the bit i don't understand. and as far as scarlet threads are concerned, why not song of songs 4:3? the other scarlet thread that occurs to me is the one from the scapegoat ceremony. also, a different word for prostitute is used, which doesn't have the "sacred" connotations.

Tamar is said to have the gift of prophecy and knew her seed would be the future messiah. There is a story which claims Potiphar's wife wanted to have twins via Joseph as did Tamar.

yes, indeed - that's one of the sources for the link between the davidic messiah and the josephic messiah. both came out of controversial marriages - in fact the same is true of boaz-ruth and david-batsheva. so that might indeed be a reason to suggest that tamar had been a temple prostitute at some point. very interesting indeed. the tradition also suggests that one explanation of this episode is that in Torah time the obligation of levirate marriage ("yibum") would have fallen on judah rather than his son (his wife having died) and that he was evading his responsibility. tamar, therefore, is by this logic justified in resorting to this stratagem to force him to marry her.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[El Greko]

Why is it that Jews and Christians are often accused of borrowing their tales and stories from earlier cultures?

Firstly, there is never anything new under the sun, and further perhaps the earlier instances were a shadow of the greater reality to come, or an attempt by the enemy to counterfeit.

Lets say there is a story in the Bible about a man who marries a woman with a wooden leg called Smith, the woman's name is Smith, not the leg.

I bet somebody with knowledge of ancient wooden leg worship cults will suddenly comes up and say that we nicked the story and just changed the name of the woman from Arterxeridididlinosidflnd to Smith to make it more understandble when in fact it really first happened when Nimrod was knee high to a grasshopper.

Havent most of us at some time told a story to a friend, who replies funny you shoud say that, for exactly that happened to my wife's uncle's cousin's daughter in Scunthorpe.

Just because something simular happened before does not mean that it was plaguerised!

Just a thought

[I, Brian]

Well, if there was a certain popular prior story about a man with a wooden leg and a wife called Smith, and later on in another culture we saw a remarkably similar story about a man with a wooden leg and a wife who's name is linguisticailly related to Smith, then questions would inevitably be asked as to the origin of the stories.

[Nogodnomasters]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Well, if there was a certain popular prior story about a man with a wooden leg and a wife called Smith, and later on in another culture we saw a remarkably similar story about a man with a wooden leg and a wife who's name is linguisticailly related to Smith, then questions would inevitably be asked as to the origin of the stories.

They do compare and it is acceptable until you descibe Jesus and the Bible in the same light as all other myths. Then it can't be. At this point the similarities are not exact so they can't be related. The out cry from religious groups approaches absurdity. Isn't Gilgamish the same story as Noah? If in a creation story a heel is placed on the head of a serpent, wouldn't that be too coincidental to say it is unrealted to the Bible text?

One would expect many differences in stories due to culture and time. The Flintstones are based on the Honeymooners- we know that for a fact. They are even in the same culture separated by only a few years, but there are vast differences between them. We can compare Jesus to other savior gods and find many similarities, far more than the Flinstones and Honeymooners, yet believers contend they are too vastly difference.

As for now compartive mythology in the universities must be spent doing mundane tasks as comparing Apollo of Greek mythology with Apollo of Roman mythology.

[Phi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I think we should put that up on a big sign somewhere.

Hello all. I am new to this site... And hello again Brian, thanks for the response to my email.
Just want to say that I agree fully with the idea expressed that if there ever were to be a new worldwide matriarchy, it would be terribly unfortunate if it were just a "man-subjecting/man-dominating" form of religion/philosophy or "Queendom of huwomankind."
Early Hebrew scribes wrote of Shekinah, the feminine form (goddess form) of G-d. Lillith was apparently created, according to writings, in tandem with or prior to Adam, and refused to submit to him. (Lillith was actually created first, as she is written about in ancient Sumer.) These were written, but apparently not shared with the general public, and certainly not with women. This seems to give an indication of deliberate hiding of part of the "Creator's story," as it was perceived, and begs the question, "why?" Perhaps one of the reasons for establishing a "men power" society and religion is that
there is also some biblical evidence (scant though it may be) that earlier worship of Goddesses of the region may have involved sacrifice of male babies. It is clear that males prior to DNA testing could not be sure their mates were faithful and that the children of a union were their own unless laws and rules against female sexuality were created and strictly enforced, and having an all-male and male-only interpretation of G-d, with the female of the species responsible for all evils helped to enable men to know that their sons were indeed their sons. (Evolutionary survival of the "owner" of the woman, rather than survival of the fittest?)
Jesus, according to the texts available, was rather revolutionary in that he spoke to women, even non-Jewish women, as willingly as to men. There is evidence that he also had some women as apostles, and perhaps even one(Da Vinci seemed to think so...)as disciple. Mucho-Radical in that time. So radical that later macho-male disciples/apostles found it rather distasteful for they had been indoctrinated from birth to see themselves as superior. (As were most men ever since.)
There would perhaps be a tendency for a neomatriarchy to be rather vengeful after so many years of women being considered lesser creatures.
(Man vs woman:It's kinda like the arguments children have "did not"--"did too" that go round in circles and never accomplish anything. When will humankind "grow up?")
I also believe that sometimes myths have grains of truth in them, and may be reference to actual historical events. The myths about women-ruled queendoms that used men only for procreation and enslaved & gelded or killed them afterward abound in ancient mythology: the most famous being the Amazon. Perhaps this is an indication that there was a previous cycle of female domination much larger than these little scraps of mythology indicate.
A new cycle of imbalance would be terribly unfortunate. IMO We need to become balanced, not either/or.