When God was a Woman

[Mohamed]

"including the apalling sexism that has sprung up from the third monolithic religion, Islam."

If you read the Qur'an carefully, you will see that there is no sexism in Islam.  Both Men and Women are equal.

"....formless, genderless truth that...."

If you study Islam, you can see that this is our view of God.  God does not have a gender, nor does God have form.

Mohamed

[Tisha]

I agree with you, Mohamed.  But somehow, the appalling sexism referred to in this article DID emerge in middle-eastern Islamic cultures, and runs rampant today.  These cultures use Islam as their excuse to oppress women, even though there is no basis for it in the Quran.  I don't quite understand how this came to be.  Do you know what happened?

[Mohamed]

This is true Tisha, though, I would rather you have said Arabic cultures.  Before Islam was revealed to the Arabs, men took women as their form of pleasure and house keeping servant.  Women were not looked upon very highly.  It was not uncommon to see a man with 6, 8, or even 10 wives.  Rich men had even more that this!

When Islam was revealed to the Arabs, they did not wish to follow it because of the fair and equal balance of Man and Women.  Now a days, countries such a Saudi Arabia, use Islam as a way to make women feel lower than men, but they never have any direct Qur'anic text to justify their claims.  They say anything and tell Women that this is how it is.  Women except this because they are not educated to the extent that men are in countries like Saudi Arabia, but those few women who are, know that they can be just as strong and perhaps even stronger (politically, physically ect.) than a man!

Hope this helps,

Mohamed

[travelinbob]

If God, The Universe, The Whole, or whatever you want to call it had to be athropomorphic, and it had to have a gender, it would be female.

[eeb]

When God would be a woman, he would ´ve made the man to bear children...

[Novice]

I found this article very interesting. Thank you for posting it Tisha.

Personally, I've always 'felt' like God is genderless. I've never felt comfortable describing God as male only or female only. I think God encompasses qualities of both genders equally and balanced. I think this same description can be used to describe all of the sages of the past as well. Their bodies may have a gender, but their characteristics and reactions balance both male and female qualities.

However, societies and religions tend to only recognize/worship one facet of him/her. To me, this is seeing only part of the picture. I don't like to refer to God as It, though (a tad bit impersonal for me). So when I pray, I address God as Father/Mother (yep, I say them both together).

Just my 2 cents on the topic!

[Mustardseed]

I say with all the girls

When God made man.....she was only kiddin'

[Lighthouse]

Tisha,

I joined this forum a little late to see this article when you first posted it.  Thank you. []

--Kerri

[Gandalf]

Hi Tisha_
Thanks for the article.
IMV 'god', which is genderless and any male/female aspects are just suitable bridges for us to 'close the gap', btw I also dont view 'god' in a monotheistic fashion but rather in the pantheistic one where the term 'god' = 'the All'. God is therefor not a person as such.

From the perspective of an historian, I dont buy all this stuff about an ancient universal 'earth mother' worhipped by everyone in the past, across the board, before the evil women haters took over.

This is a feminist fantasy. In reality it was indeed the case that local mother goddesses were held in high regard by many ancient peoples, along with other gods and goddesses, but the statement that there was any kind of universal earth mother deity who was usurped worldwide by male orientated god figures is just fantasy.

Part of this old feminist fantasy details how how human society reached a point when it could go either way, towards male orientated religion or female, and it chose the male, with bad consequences for everyone... there is absolutly no evidence for this at all.

The post feminist era has exploded all of these myths along with another popular one where some people state that in a matriarchal society there would be no conflicts. Anthropology has laid this one to rest as well.

The post feminist era promotes that men and women ARE different after all, *equal* but *different*. ie 'Men are from mars, women are from Venus' an important book which details the fundamental difference between the way men and women think.

Anyway, Im way off topic again, but basically I agree that many religions are intepreted using a male bias, this has been the case for a long time, esp with the monotheistic religions, but we should not follow this to the extent of falling into the old feminist fantasy of an ancient universal mother worship in pre-history.; In fact various goddess and god worship has always been around, even if the *emphases* seems to have been more on the female aspects *in some areas* in the past.

Douglas

PS check out your local anthropology or ancient history department for more details on current thinking on this issue

[lifebreath]

Gandalf - you are right on topic ...

While I agree that the feminine has not always been integrated well into our understanding of God, I thinks it's a huge mistake to swing from one pole to the other, in a reactionary mode, which is what, imo, the author has done. Talk about bias! ... "This, these homoerotic, testosterone-ridden zealots did."

Here, you've got a woman doing the very thing she is accusing the "these homoerotic, testosterone-ridden zealots" of doing, just in reverse! Namely, she is fanatically attempting to stamp out the Male aspect of Deity and reestablish (if you can really call it that, as gandalf pointed out) the Female Goddess as supreme!

Everything in nature speaks of dynamic interplay of male/female, hard/soft, active/passive, force/form - syzygies. The Jewish scripture tells of God creating humans in "His" image. But what is that image? "Male and Female they were created!" Male AND Female is the image or reflection of God. In all the various mystery and esoteric traditions, you have this truth respresented - the Sun is male, the moon (or earth) is female, the Yin and Yang, etc. Even Christianity (admittedly biased toward the male aspect) recognizes the fact, however obliquely, in venerating Mary (the mother of Jesus and the Church), MOTHER church, the church (or body of believers) as The Bride and God as the Bridegroom.

The Jewish name of God, the Tetragramaton, Yod-He-Vod-He, represents this fundemental truth. Looking at the first two letters, the "Yod" is the male principle, or active force, and the "He" (ironically enough with the english spelling of the letter) represents the female principle, or contstraining form. Together, they generate manifested existence. Also, the Yod (male principle) combines with "he-vod-he," EVE, the female principle to form the complete Name.

Thus, perhaps the best anthropomorphism would be androgynous. Or, you can simply look at the imprint of God in Nature and find the same thing. Why do we pit one against the other?

[Jenadots]

Hi, everyone.  I have been reading Sylvia Browne's latest book on this very subject.  She says the original Genesis chapters say "we" created man and woman in "our" image in that if there were no female aspect to God, there would be no image to make a woman in.

Anyway, it is interesting reading and doesn't have anything to do with feminism.  Rather it speaks of God as a balanced being with both a male and a female God.  

Interesting reading.  I recommend it to everyone.

[findtruth]

I call, the female aspect of The Great Divine Prescence, or whatever you call it, the Goddess.  In my experience, I need both the Goddess AND the God or the Great Thing That Be Out There, to feel complete.[]

[Aristoles]

First of all,eggs arent alive are they?
But sperms are,which means men are actually the source of life.
Now that we cleared that up,why would a god limit itself to one gender?I mean,that is so much bull!Just forget about god or goddess and simply call it a Deity.Waha

[Lighthouse]

I sent a copy of Tisha's original post to my husband a while ago and here was his response to it:

I believe that there came a point in history when religion began to be used as a potent weapon or tool of control.

Prior to the rise of organized religions, religion actually served a purpose, and it seems from the article you quote, that it was woman based, which makes sense.  Mother Earth, right?!?!

Later, the religions became, in my opinion, perversions of the very teachings they quoted.

So, the simple language of Christ's teachings, which I would summarize as the golden rule, becomes organized Christianity's statement that "you will go to hell unless you accept that Christ died for our sins."

Meanwhile, by definition, Christ's teachings predated his "death" right?  So, he never tought this.  Only the people who wanted to use Christ as a weapon created this bogosity.  

In other words, I never saw anything in the New Testament where Christ himself went around teaching that he was going to die for our sins, or am I wrong?
This is all later day interpretation.

So, my argument is that current Christianity is NOT what Christ himself taught, and in fact misses the point of Christ.

What a bogosity to say that the religion is based on blind acceptance that this person died for our sins.  It should be his teachings that count.

[James S]

"Meanwhile, by definition, Christ's teachings predated his "death" right? So, he never tought this. Only the people who wanted to use Christ as a weapon created this bogosity. "

What stunningly simple reasoning!

It amazes me how much time bible scholars spend raking through the bible with fine tooth combs to extract some great meaning out of each and every little word of verse, yet I bet this very basic concept would be hotly refuted.

James.