32. "i can get with that" In response to In response to 27 Thu Aug-04-05 04:00 PM by LexM
>Paul? i wont comment too much on him....but i dont consider >him an apostle....in fact the exact opposite....
hmm...now that's interesting. elaborate if you like...you can't insult me. ha.
>>i guess my question is, what came first? the exclusively >male >>god, or the culture that spawned him. > >different and places the knowledge of the Divine manifested in >different ways, mostly according to the understanding of the >societies.....but the twisting of that for agendas is human >maniplation....
true. that's my thought as well. i guess my question has always been when did that domination have to mean male trumps female?
'cause it's obvious that wasn't always the case. i used to think it was just eastern/african, then i started learning about the western earth-based religions that also incorporated elements of the divine feminine on equal standing with male counterparts.
it seems that, usually, the difference has been agricultural vs. technological/industrial societies. the more "science" takes over, the more "male" god becomes.
>word. its ok to break down the Divine, which is beyond >encapsulating comprehension, into understandable concepts, but >we have to be careful not to project those concepts back up, >or to let certain concepts dominate over others...
~~~~ ~*~musical revolution~*~
"The world was warned about this...The CIA calls what happened in London today "blowback." It is wrong, it is heinous, it is murder plain and simple, and it was as predictable as the sun rising in the East." ~Wm Rivers Pitt