THE FORSAKEN - Happy Naked Pagan Dance
POSTED BY: PhoenixRose
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 19:41
VIEWED: 16919
PAGE 4 of 16
gorramit!
and yet it has such beauty in it's purpose...from chaos comes form, and, er, with purpose, pusposeful form...yus indeedly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SisterBettyX:
PR, Are you into Wicca or goddess worship?
Yes'm
I am a bona-fide Buddhist, Shaman, Earth-worshiping, Lord and Lady loving, wand-waving, incense-burning buffet Pagan!
*dances in happy little circles chanting "Isis! Isis! Ra Ra Ra!"*
**********************************
**********************************
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, Egyptian, eh? Ahem.
ThothSetHorusOsirisAnubisQhebesnefHapi
At least from memory...
I like Hapi. Organ-guarding baboons unite!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Isis, Horus and Osiris; the Original Holy Trinity.
Then the new Trinity went and made the "Mother" the "Holy Ghost" and therefore sexless 
Anyone read "Jesus and the Lost Goddess" or any of those? They make me sad. They're really good, but they make me sad. It explains all the symbolism and metaphors and basically what a great religion it could be if it were a little bit contemplative and how it was manipulated to control and... Oh it makes me sad.
**********************************
**********************************
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here follows a rant.
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Anyone read "Jesus and the Lost Goddess" or any of those? They make me sad. They're really good, but they make me sad. It explains all the symbolism and metaphors and basically what a great religion it could be if it were a little bit contemplative and how it was manipulated to control and... Oh it makes me sad.
I think it would have been a better religion if two things happened:
1 They stuck to what it said in the books, not what symbols they could steal from pagans or what ideologies they could make up on the side.
2 They preserved all of the books, not just the ones they liked, and taught their flocks to think for themselves and make up their own minds on which books should be listened to.
Did they do that? No, they threw out most of the books in a big, "Look at me I can vote and you can't," session they killed the people who disagreed with them, and then Pope Greg the Great came along with a bullshit story that everyone knew had no basis in any kind of fact, but what with all of the dissenters in that part of the world dead and the divine athority of the Pope he was able to, on his own, rewrite the gospel without changing any of the words but instead altering the meaning.
The catholic church has since come out and said, "Hey, Greg was just bullshitting you," (which is part of the reason I feel confidant that calling it bullshit shouldn't offend anyone) but the story remains.
That's the Magdaline story of course, call her a protitute for no apparent reason, have the majority believe it for the next few hundred years. The only reason it is possible is that people care more about what they are told the bible says than what it actually says.
That problem, I believe, comes from arrogance. People want to be able to leave their mark on the bible so they say, "This is what it says ... NO! don't read it. This it what it says, I'm telling you so you don't have to figure it out for yourself. Understand? Are you going to read it with that in mind and never question that? Ok, you can read it now."
The other problem comes from fear. People are afraid that if I let you read the Gospel of Thomas you'll believe it and not believe them. I don't know whether they believe the gospel was inspired by satan or whether they simply think you're so much stupider than them that you can't make the right judgement where they can, but if this really is about god why not let the people read everything there is to read and have god, if he doesn't like it, deal with it. A miracle isn't needed, just a strong feeling that this document isn't the right one. If god doesn't care enough about someone getting it right to either do that or make them able to figure it out on their own why should the person in question care about getting it right?
Ok, I'd like to close the rant on my thoughts about Mary Magdaline because I brought her up.
While it does say in one work Jesus "used to kiss her often on ____," which is an annoying place for a hole in the page if ever there was one, and her first reaction to seeing him alive provoked the response, "Do not cling to me," I don't really see the evidence for a relationship there other than what he had with the rest. I mean the kissing passage follows, "loved her more than all the disciples," and imedeately preceeds them asking, "Why do you love her more than all of us?"
To me that says that he loves her in the same manner as the disciples, whom he also kisses, but more. I don't see why love should mean christian sibling-like love to one group and husband-wife love to another when they only are said to differ by degree.
So I figure could they have been married, sure why not, but I really don't care.
Personally I'm more interested in her importance than her marital status, The DaVinci Code and other such works imply that the only important part of her was her womb, I doubt that.
She gets mentioned more than several of The Twelve combined, as near as we can tell she was an important figure in
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't be sad! Dance in the chocolate with the rest of us.
I've got to go catch up on the threads around here, since i've been gone for a while, but here's a vat of ice cream to go with the chocolatehenge. After all, you have to dip those in something (pulls out the Colosseum full of ice cream) There!
( dances off through the chocolate to find previous threads)
So who is he?
He's my husband.
Well who in the damn galaxy ain't!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It wasn't just about screwing. That is a very cheap way of putting it. If you're going to look at the symbolism of it, Mary Magdalene was the Goddess to Jesus' God. She was the Lady to his Lord and the Yin to his Yang. She was the lost Goddess. Of course she was important.
The reason the Da Vinci code and the books it draws from puts emphasis on her womb, as you put it, is because they are of the opinion that it is the blood of Christ and the Magdalene that is the Holy Grail. Not only that, they are of the opinion that Jesus was a mortal man who loved and reproduced like a mortal man, which undermines the church's claim of his being divine.
At that time, not marrying would have been an offense to the Jewish faith, and Jesus was Jewish.
But the church took being "pure" and "virginal" and wrapped it all up with "divine". Just another guilt trip.
But here's the really extreme spin on it: these people more than likely never existed. No where in the Romans' extremely good records is there a mention of the crucifixion of anyone names Jesus. Just as nowhere is there evidence of the Egyptians having Jewish slaves who then wandered in the desert for 40 years. These stories are symbols. The number 40 represents basically "as long as it takes" and they are all stories of death and rebirth. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the world was reborn. Jesus went into the desert for 40 days and 40 nights and fought with satan (or his own demons) and came back enlightened. Moses wandered in the desert for 40 years, died, and another led them out of the desert. Every story is a metaphor for the lower consciousness dying and making room for the higher consciousness. The Buddha consciousness, the Christ consciousness, the Divine Spark, the Holy Ghost, Nirvana, whatever you want to call it it's all the same thing. There are so many stories of death and rebirth, dating back to the story of Isis, Horus and Osiris, and farther than that. They all mean the same thing, but the meaning gets lost because corrupt people say "take this literally so you think you can't touch the divine without assistance and we can control you" and the lazy people of the world say "Oh, okay."
That's why I say, if it was a little bit contemplative, it would be a lot better. The practitioners who are contemplative are better people than those who have handed their spirituality to someone else. Even when they don't quite get it, they still get it.
This is why I don't let any dictate what I should be or what I should think and believe. And why I think organizing religion is the beginning of the end for a lot of spirits. I avoid it like the plague, myself. I know it can have its benefits, but I still think the spirit should be personal.
On that note, I think I'll dip myself in the hot chocolate again, because this is The Forsaken and I can!
**********************************
**********************************
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
It wasn't just about screwing. That is a very cheap way of putting it. If you're going to look at the symbolism of it, Mary Magdalene was the Goddess to Jesus' God. She was the Lady to his Lord and the Yin to his Yang. She was the lost Goddess. Of course she was important.
But for her to be that they need never have had sex (certainly not kids) which is my point.
Quote:
The reason the Da Vinci code and the books it draws from puts emphasis on her womb, as you put it, is because they are of the opinion that it is the blood of Christ and the Magdalene that is the Holy Grail.
I am well aware of what it says, and of Sarah the Eygyptian, the dark child that was said to arrive on the shores of France with both Mary and Mary. I'm also aware of the significance of "dark" with respect to the bloodline Jesus was said to be a part of and the interesting timing of the Marys supposed stay in Egypt with respect to when a child of Jesus might be born.
Quote:
Not only that, they are of the opinion that Jesus was a mortal man who loved and reproduced like a mortal man, which undermines the church's claim of his being divine.
Of course the church also claims that Jesus was mortal, sort of like the whole "it's a particle and a wave" thing. Remember that The Council of Nicea didn't just kick out the things that denied the divinity of Jesus, they also threw out things that denied the mortality of Jesus.
All of those things that said, "Jesus was only divine," were kicked out.
Quote:
At that time, not marrying would have been an offense to the Jewish faith, and Jesus was Jewish.
That's actually under debate, there were certainly Jewish men of age who did not have wives at the time and were full of respect for the faith, however I agree that from what I know you are right that not mentioning his wife might have been like not mentioning his elbow, we might be meant to assume he has one unless explictly told otherwise.
However if he did have a wife what reason is there to believe she was Mary Magdalene, nothing mentions her as the wife of Jesus, and the thing that says companion also says that she is loved like the male followers of Jesus are, just more so, does that mean we should think... Ok, I'm going to stop now before I get killed for mentioning a heresy that I don't even hold to.
Quote:
But the church took being "pure" and "virginal" and wrapped it all up with "divine". Just another guilt trip.
No argument with their obession with virginal, look at all that has sprung up around that other Mary, look at the lengths they go to ignore the brothers and sisters of Jesus. However one must remember that evidence that the Church was uptight is not evidence that any spesific person was the wife of Jesus
Quote:
But here's the really extreme spin on it: these people more than likely never existed. No where in the Romans' extremely good records is there a mention of the crucifixion of anyone names Jesus.
That isn't quite true, for two reasons. The first is that the romans records are not extremely good. Of course I might be wrong, if I am please show me where the list of every crucifixion in the provences, to my knowldge no such things survive. I'm not even sure if they were made in the first place. Jesus was by all accounts a minor figure, in a minor provcence, who was only killed because it was making a fuss at riot season, not worthy of note in Rome.
What was worthy of note in Rome doesn't really survive consistantly either, there are plenty of things we know about only because someone says, "This is really good, you have to read it."
Certainly when Tactius wrote "Auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat" he did not believe that the existance of Christ was in doubt, since he knew more about Roman record keeping than you or I think the argument based in lack of records has little grounding. It is,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
christhecynic wrote:
But for her to be that they need never have had sex (certainly not kids) which is my point.
If you will look at it as not necessarily being fact for a moment, I will tell you what is wrong with that.
Pagan turning of the season is marked by the God and Goddess and how they relate to each other. I think it's a little weird but remember that it is a symbol.
So first, in the spring, the Lord and Lady fall in love and a little later are handfasted, joined, or married, depending on the term you want to use. This involves sex, because the Goddess gets pregnant. There is happiness and joy all through summer. In the fall, the God dies, and is reborn through the Goddess on the winter solstice. Repeat.
That's simplified, but basically how it works. Most holy days even now are traced back to this.
So, in symbolic terms, especially if co-opting Pagan myths and traditions, Mary being the LAdy and Jesus being the Lord would involve a little sex. There are even some parallels in the story, especially her being the first to see him after he is reborn.
So, if you take the story as symbolic (which most religious stories should be, in my opinion) it would be the same story. The union of the Lord and Lady is very important because it gives rise to rebirth.
Plus, in the early Pagan-ish religions, sex was a spiritual act, a union with the divine, and not seen as wrong. This, I believe, is one of the many things that was co-opted, but it was twisted around the most out of anything else.
There is a lot more I could go in to on this whole subject, but now it is time for bed and no more thinking.
Oh, but if I were to subscribe to anything relating to Christianity, I would be Gnostic, yes. It would probably work quite well to be a Gnostic Buddhist Witch since the teachings are all the same at their core. But then, since that's true, I also don't technically need the Gnostic part.
'Night!
**********************************
**********************************
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love Eddie Izzard! 
See Christhecynic's first pagan speech.
Deb
http://serendipityagain.com/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME