PDA

View Full Version : Who is Astarte



vocis noctis
April 14th, 2001, 05:07 PM
I've heard about Astarte and Astaroth in some lyrics of my fav band, just wondering who are they?

rantnraven
April 14th, 2001, 06:10 PM
Try a lookup on the internet. Seems this is a vast subject. Mostly, it appears to be Wiccan but you might deside otherwise.

Rambling,

RnR

Tigerwallah
April 15th, 2001, 11:24 PM
Astarte and Astoreth or Astaroth are associated with Isis and Hathor. Astarte is the main deity in the Bible that the Jews are told to relinquish. They are three of the 10,000 names of the Goddess. I believe that it was Astoreth that the followers of Moses were worshipping when he allegedly smashed the tablets of the 10 Commandments.

Tigerwallah
April 15th, 2001, 11:35 PM
This is a quotation from "When God Was a Woman" by Merlin Stone.
"It was not long before the various pieces of evidence fell into place and the connections began to take form. And then I understood. Ashtoreth the despised "Pagan" deity of the Old Testament was (despite the efforts of the biblical scribes to disguise her identity by repeatedly using the masculine gender) actually Astarte - the Great Goddess, as She was known in Canaan, the Near Eastern Queen of Heaven. Those heathen idol worshipers of the Bible had been praying to a woman god - elsewhere known as Innin, Inanna, Nana, Nut, Anat, Anahita, Istar, isis, Au Set, Ishara, Asherah, Ashtart, Attoret, Attar and Hathor - the many-named Divine Ancestress. Yet each name denoted, in the various languages and dialects of those who revered Her, The Great Goddess. Was it merely coincidence that during all those years of Sunday School I never learned that Ashtoreth was female?"

BrightStar
April 17th, 2001, 04:01 AM
Hi all!
Here's some more info.Kinda fits in.
The Witches' Goddess by Janet and Stewart Farrar says another name for this Goddess in Canaanite is Ashera or Asherat.Wife and Mother of Baal.As Asherat-of-the-Sea she was the mother of 70 children and counsellor of the Supreme God,El.According to Dr. Raphael Pati,for 240 of the 360 years Solomon's Temple stood in Jerusalem,Asherah was worshipped alongside Jehovah as his wife and sister.Her wooden image was publically displayed there.When Elijah slew 400 priest of Baal,he left those of Ashera alone.She was popular with the farming population of Israel.The tribe of Asher is named after her,the most sea-conscious of the 12 tribes,as they held a strip of coastal land 50 miles long and 10 miles wide.
Peace and Love
BrightStar

vocis noctis
April 17th, 2001, 09:25 AM
Thanks all for the help with this :) I will think and look up things.

bananabrain
May 2nd, 2001, 09:16 AM
look, firstly, just *because* the idols, sacred posts and asherim were there, doesn't mean they were approved of. in fact the prophets, particularly, elijah, elisha, isaiah and jeremiah make the point over and over again that it is the fact that they are not removed that keeps causing everything to go horribly wrong for the people.

one of the main complaints against the kings of israel and judah is that they didn't suppress this stuff completely, with the result that society itself became immoral. and if you don't think that society was immoral at the time, just look at the stuff the text says people got up to, in joshua, samuel and kings - lying, theft, violence, rape, murder, even genocide, from the bottom of society to the top. this is not a simple, open-and-shut case (as wishful thinking seems to want it to be) of 'Big Bad Monotheists arrive and ruthlessly oppress the peace-loving, tree-hugging egalitarian pagans'. far from it. as usual, IMHO jewish texts are being [ab]used to criticise the roman, subsequently christianised subjugation of western europe and the near east, with particular relevance to the celts - and they have very little to do with it. every time i come across this merlin stone character i am astounded at the way he mistreats our sacred texts. he is unbelievably ignorant of the feminine aspects of the jewish concepts of the Divine and appears to make no distinction between our beliefs and the opinions of the church fathers - who were not the most gynophile of people.

i'm not attempting to paint the jewish people as a nation of upright, ethically unimpeachable "saints" - we had picked up a lot of bad habits in our degradation in egypt. in a generation's dislocated wandering in the desert we were targeted by every marauding band of thugs that crossed our path. by the time we arrived in canaan we were accustomed to shoot first and ask questions later - the world view of 'everyone's out to get us' - which we still retain to a certain extent, to our detriment. unfortunately, as we all know, one invariably becomes the thing one hates. and compounding the situation is the proud jewish tradition of being a bunch of instinctive troublemakers! so when our kings did not provide decent, righteous leadership (as we had been warned) but instead cooperated with idolatry, this resulted in an incredibly corrupt society.

my remarks so far have been somewhat general. however, it is important to remember exactly what it was that judaism objected to about the worship of the ba'alim and asherim. we are not talking about casting a circle and praying for peace, love and understanding, a sort of ecologically sound pacifist pantheism here. we are talking about a religion whose primary ritual was one of *human sacrifice*, of prisoners and, most damning in jewish eyes, their own children, to ensure that these deities would grant them a good harvest. this is a religion of blood, a lobbying of powerful forces to gain their favour to a feudal degree. all of these guys, kemosh, molech, dagon, ashtoreth, milcom, promised a visible, causal return in return for the blood and lives they were given. it is this that judaism finds so offensive and it is this point that is made in the mock-sacrifice of isaac - abraham discovers that this G!D is *different*, that the Divine does not require human lives to be sacrificed, but lived. our own sacrificial cultus (note - animals only) was according to our most eminent sages a concession to the human need for it.

i hope that people consider these issues before resurrecting humanity's early foolishness. in my experience, the people i encounter in neo-pagan environments are universally committed to peace, social justice, equality, tolerance all of which are paths that connect with the Infinite Divine by whatever Name. but frankly i have to draw the line when it comes to this sort of worship, because of how it was practiced, which calls to the worst selfishness in our human nature.

i hope this is not too much of a rant....

b'shalom

bananabrain

Mairwen
May 2nd, 2001, 11:21 AM
No, Banabrain, you're completely in bounds. Thanks for your informative post. Like I said in the Lilith thread, people tend to just look at a thing and analyze it according to "modern terms" ~ and you just can't do that. You have to place a thing in its own time period and analyze it there. Unfortunately, too many don't like taking the time to do so. :rolleyes:

Tigerwallah
May 2nd, 2001, 08:54 PM
Bananabrain,
I have to disagree with many of your points. First of all, I, personally, have found no evidence of the existence of Moses or of Jews being enslaved in Egypt. Look past written word to archeological evidence - there is none. Recently, archeological studies, in fact, have proven that paid labor built the pyramids and great temples of Egypt. This paid labor consisted of two groups, skilled and unskilled laborers - whose homes and graves were found. The Egyptians being amazing record keepers never mention anywhere the plagues or support the Bibles account in any way. Strange considering they're accounts were carved in stone at the time of occurance - not thousands of years later on paper after the stories were passed around like the game of telephone.

Astarte and Astoreth may not have been approved by the Hebrews. Neither is Christ, but many widely accepted religions hold him as their lord. What I am saying is that "accepted" is subjective to what someone belives. I disagree with the accounts of the Bible as very little of it can be backed up with archeological evidence. Blind faith was never my bag. You'll never find me drinking the cool aid in Jonestown. I do believe that the Bible is a political tool that was used to usher in patriarcal groups into power - giving them much wealth and power. The Bible, strangely reffers to Astarte and Astoreth in the masculine. Both are Goddesses, but the writers of the Bible do not want you to know that a woman ever held the position of deity.

I also disagree with the "lack of morality" you speak of. The earliest religions, the earliest people, were goddess worshippers. They lived in Matriarcal societies. Wealth was passed down from mother to daughter because that was the only lineage that could be proven since women were in control of their own sexual activities. These stories were used to subjugate women and enslave them in marital situations were they are controlled by the man, and therefor, he can pass land to his offspring with a degree of certainty that it is his offspring.

Up until this point, the act of sex was not considered to be immoral. The Bible was written to control women. It was written as a political tool to further the cause of the Jews, and later Christians - the dawn of a patriarcal society. When God was a woman, women were in power - political, religious, monitarily. When God became a man men got the land, power, and controlled religion.

As far as human sacrifice goes, most pagan groups did offer one human sacrifice a year, and he went willingly as it was a great honor to do so. No one killed their children. That is just anti-pagan propoganda. Every year, the high preistess or queen, would take a husband, and at the end of that year he would be sacrificed to ensure a bountiful harvest and to play out the death of the god - such as the death of Osiris. This man knew what he was in for and went willingly. One man a year is nothing compared to the bloodshed that Moses is reported to have committed after leaving Egypt. This was before being given the 10 Commandments, which state "Thou Shalt Not Kill" It was conveinient considering, if a true account, there was no one left to kill. And what of Passover? If you believe the Bible's account then the Hebrew God is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent, young children. If this deity is indeed omnipotent, couldn't it have found a different way to get the "slaves" out of Egypt. Instead, this god chose to kill children. Course, I don't believe that either, but if you believe in the Bible you would have to.

We all have different views of our religions. I have never believed in the validity of the Bible, which is my right. I was born and raised Catholic, and didn't accept my own faith due to lack of evidence.

It was through studies of Ancient Egypt that led me to my belief system. I studied the Bible, read books by Hebrew religious leaders and Christian religous leaders, spent one day a week for 10 years in the Metropolitan Museum of Art looking for any evidence to either back up or knock down the walls of my beleifs, as well as read many articles and books, and devoured any documentaries I could find. All lead me to the same conclusions. I welcome any and all evidence to the contrary, but have found nothing other than hearsay.
I believe that all people have the capasity for both very good, and very horrific behavior, and every group has had it's individuals that have chosen to do evil. It is unfair to believe that ancient pagans were any different - just as it is unfair to believe the same about Jews. I hope I didn't offend you, but these are my historical and archeological fact based beliefs, and I do not wait for the approval of Pope, preist or Rabbi. Approval does not constitute truth.

bananabrain
May 3rd, 2001, 11:59 AM
oh, so archaelogists haven't found any evidence of it? right. well, i guess we might as well all give up and go home then. OK, everybody, chuck 4000 years of jewish history and life in the bin, because we totally rely on archaelogists for validation. blimey.

"I disagree with the accounts of the Bible as very little of it can be backed up with archeological evidence. "

a word about this 'evidence'. scientific method, for which i have a great deal of respect, does not 'prove' things. it hypothesises and then tests these hypotheses. if they are disproved then the hypothesis falls, otherwise it continues to stand. therefore, although theories, statements and the like can be disproved, they cannot be proved. they simply have not yet been disproved. 'evidence' is not an objective concept - it can only support or contradict a given theory. this in turn gives us the scientific 'truth', which basically boils down to the prevailing opinion amongst the group whose opinion is being sought. this is why it was possible to claim that, for example, it was 'true' that the atom was the smallest thing possible, or indeed that the earth was flat, only until this was disproved. there is a big difference between empirical truth and absolute or universal truth, but this is a question for philosophers, not archaeologists.

i'm not attempting to argue, incidentally, that my opinion is the absolute or universal variety - i have no quarrel with, say, carbon-dating or the fossil record - but it is misleading to confuse the two types of truth. my opinion on, say, the exodus is simply my opinion, based on my sacred texts, as yours is yours, based on archaelogical theories, which are just that - theories. these are not the only archaeological theories there are, either.

"Blind faith was never my bag. You'll never find me drinking the cool aid in Jonestown."

i presume that is where bob jones "university" or some such temple of learning is. i like those guys about as much as you do - they give my sacred texts a bad name, usually because they don't know how to read them. as i am sure i am going to have to say again, the Written Law of the Torah makes very little sense without the parallel tradition of the Oral Law, written down in the Talmud and subsequent commentary. i must say i think the phrase 'blind faith' is a little self-serving. our tradition has survived everything the world has thrown at it for 4000 years. if nothing else i can trust it as an internally consistent and sustainable way of life - there's nothing 'blind' about that. of course, my attitude to revelation is necessarily a matter of faith, because archaeology simply doesn't operate on that level. it would be like asking what an apple sounds like.

while we're on the subject of blind faith, i would find your arguments a great deal more consistent if they were not based on the following premise:

"I do believe that the Bible is a political tool that was used to usher in patriarcal groups into power"

that may well be true in the case of the catholic church, but i'm talking about judaism here. now look, i will leave aside your obvious lack of knowledge of jewish thinking and legislation on gender issues - read the wonderful blu greenberg's 'on being a jewish feminist', because obviously as a bloke anything i have to say on the subject would be suspect. i will confine myself to say that there are an awful lot of intelligent religious jewish women, (like my fiancée, who has a philosophy degree) that disagree.

however, if you believe that, then your entire view of history and texts is coloured by that, in the same way that a marxist sees everything in terms of class war. furthermore, i think there's a bit of a double standard operating if you think the "biblical scribes" left out stuff they disapproved of in order to rewrite history, but the official egyptian scribes (again, men) by contrast, weren't capable of putting the same spin on it. the fact that they didn't write anything down about the exodus disproves nothing. i find it somewhat peculiar that you think that everyone but merlin stone is lying - that has all the hallmarks of the mccarthyist 'big lie' technique beloved of conspiracy theorists all over the web. i'm sorry, but if you don't understand the religious context of the Torah, you have no hope of getting anything out of it. for example:

"The Bible ...refers to Astarte and Astoreth in the masculine."

actually, what it refers to are 'ASheRIM', which can be translated in a variety of ways, but is a collective term for idolatrous shrines, not a specific goddess. elsewhere, she is referred to as the 'queen of the hosts of the sky', which is, i would say, fairly feminine.

look, i don't deny for a moment that people, even the jews, worshipped a plethora of goddesses, but i am concerned at your insistence on this mythological idyll of an egalitarian matriarchal paradise, before the evil old men mucked it all up - it seems to me to be somewhat similar to the self-styled "nation of islam's" insistence that once upon a time everything was great, because everyone was black, before a mad scientist created white people as an experiment in demonology. why don't you insist on evidence of that particular theory? these archaeologists in whom you set such store are far from being convinced of either. however, i can tell you that there is no shortage of people that believe that back in some golden age, they were in charge and that everything that has since gone wrong is some other group's fault. a lot of them go to bob jones university as well and many of them write books about 'what THEY don't want you to know'.

one of the things that was so revolutionary about judaism was the fact that it posited the Divine as Infinite, *beyond* gender. thus G!D was never a woman - but nor was G!D ever a man. this does not preclude the fact that jewish thought considers the Divine to have *attributes*, by contrast, that could be considered masculine or feminine (particularly in mystical thought) - but the Divine embraces both. there is positive sexual imagery galore, which brings us to this statement:

"the act of sex was not considered to be immoral". nor is it considered to be in judaism. in fact, judaism considers sex to be the closest thing you can get to union with the Divine, which is precisely why it is so concerned with getting it right. judaism and tantra in this respect have a great deal in common. you are also obviously unaware that judaism is passed through the mother, or indeed that the duty to provide sexual satisfaction is enjoined not upon the woman, but upon the man.

now, a word about sacrifice - because the sacrifice was willing, that makes it all right? as for it being 'propaganda', the sacrifice was undoubtedly *somebody's* child. we believe that a person who saves even one human life saves the entire world - human life is not relevant. all but about three of our laws can be broken in order to preserve human life. for you to say that "one man a year is nothing" is straight out of the utilitarian philosophy textbook. we disagree. you also trot out the usual accusation that "the Hebrew God is responsible for the death of thousands of innocent, young children." firstly, the king was given nine other warnings which, in his arrogance, he ignored. secondly, we commemorate those deaths to this day, every year on passover. they are not forgotten. i absolutely do not attempt to excuse the conduct of the children of israel - they failed nearly every test - but they too were punished. it is precisely this horrific behaviour that the prophets complain of - and the reason why 90% of the nation was destroyed.

however:

"I believe that all people have the capacity for both very good and very horrific behavior and every group has had ... individuals that have chosen to do evil. It is unfair to believe that ancient pagans were any different - just as it is unfair to believe the same about Jews."

you and i are 100% in agreement about this, but i am still a long way off believing that you can find all your answers in the metropolitan museum of art, or any other human structure. i also hope i have not caused you offence, as i am particularly scared of tigers and do not wish to have anything of mine digested apart from my opinions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Tigerwallah
May 3rd, 2001, 06:37 PM
I heard the bit about not looking to that which is of man to find God from the Jahovahs who try to save my soul on a regular basis. I have met Isis and Sekhemet on a very personal, very real level which was the first sense I ever had of a divinity. That is what prompted my search through history.

I set a great store in my intuition. No, I do not know much about the Jewish religion other than what is shared with Christianity. When I read the Bible as a child, I immediatly did not believe a word I read. It gave me far more questions than answers. I was a seeker from early on. When I have a question, I can not look to the written word without looking for cold, hard evidence.

In my search I read many books written by Jewish authors. One of these was "God, Sex, and Women of the Bible", by Shoni Labowitz." I found it interesting that she continually points out women who were goddess worshippers and probably even temple women as examples of women who were allowed to retain their sexuality in the Bible. Not what I expected to find from a Rabbi.

Even the Old Testament gives very strong clues as to the existance of other people and other gods from as early on as the first book. As I asked my Jahovah door bell ringer, "After Cain kills Abel he tells God that he is affraid that everyone he runs into will try to kill him for the act - everyone who? His mother and father? The birds in the trees? Who? Who was there to kill him. She told me that Adam and Eve had populated the Earth at this point. My question to her was "If everyone came from Adam and Eve, why isn't our DNA the same?" She said that over thousands of years the gene pool was muddled. Again I asked "muddled with what?" DNA would continue to repeat it's same patterns, and we would all have the same genetic makeup - like Cheetahs. Scientists believe Cheetahs were all killed off by a plague of some type - all except one pregnant female who survived and reproduced with her young. Thus, all Cheetahs have the same genetic makeup.

As for my "only one man a year" comment. That was in combination with the statement that Moses and his group of slaves supposedly go into all lands outside of Egypt and slay "Everything that Breaths"(I believe is the propper quote, as I do not have my Bible handy). This he does with not only the approval, but instruction of Yahweh. One of the first act of Jews was to kill us vile pagans. Then Moses goes up the mountain to get his 10 Commandments, which I find to be convieniently destroyed - like the Mormons who conveiniently lose there golden tablet from God - again more of that blind faith and cool-aid. "The Harlot by the Side of the Road" by Jonathan Kirsch, is an interesting compilation of all the contradictions and stories in the old testement that you aren't supposed to know. I got that little tid-bit there and looked it up.

Back to the hints of other gods in Genesis. Yahweh repeatedly warns Adam and Eve against worshipping "false" gods. well, if Yahweh has such a personal relationship with Adam and Eve, and is indeed the only god, then why would they think to worship false gods? It would be like saying, "do not pick make-believe flowers." I believe that ther bible itself proves that there was civilization long before Adam and Eve.

Now, on to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Frankly, it is arguably the second best collection of Egyptian artifacts in the world. These artifacts prove one very important thing - pagans were not lawless degenerates as the Bible would have you believe. To the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence of a society not so unlike the one we live in today - with laws and government, people living life in the pursuit of happiness, strong family structures, etc. All things that contradict what you yourself quoted from the Bible.

As for the "Big Bad Men" I don't even think it was about gender, it was just that Hebrews were male dominated as Christian groups and Muslem groups were. To gain the land and wealth, they had to take over the positions of leader, and those leaders just happened to be females. The rest just escalated from there.

As for Merlin Stone, I would not believe in her so strongly, if I did not, for myself, research her claims and find them to be accurate. Just recently, my local newspaper reported that ancient graves ( over 4 thousand years old) were found in Mesopotamia. The women were burried in opulent graves adorned with jewels and fine cloth while the men where burried with no such pomp and circumstance- which lead the group of archeologists to conclude that the society was indeed a Matrilineal one. Most scientists are loath to butt heads with theologists, and do not report contriversal findings - or are suppressed by the vastly wealthy patrilineal religions - who tend to have a hand in everything, honestly.

I find that there are esentially three types of people in this world - first is those who believe what their religion tells them to believe, second, is those who don't know for sure, and don't care, and third is those who believe nothing they are told to believe. I fit into the latter, my Jahovah friend fits into the first. So, I find that all arguements from her side, are backed up with Bible refferences. Which is like quoting a Harlequin Romance to me.

As for your religion, can you honestly say that women are considered to be absolutely equal to men, and not unclean at any time? Cause that in itself changes the weight of your arguements.

Sorry, you said most of us are peace-loving, and that is true of almost everyone else here. One of my Goddesses is Sekhemet, goddess of War. So, I tend to be a bit ferocious at times.

amberlaine
May 3rd, 2001, 10:57 PM
I don't understand why people seek to destroy the truths of other religions rather than seeking to find harmony and balance between them. why does it always have to bea "I"m right and you're a stupid a**hole" with most people. I don't understand at all.


Back to the hints of other gods in Genesis. Yahweh repeatedly warns Adam and Eve against worshipping "false" gods. well, if Yahweh has such a personal relationship with Adam and Eve, and is indeed the only god, then why would they think to worship false gods? It would be like saying, "do not pick make-believe flowers." I believe that ther bible itself proves that there was civilization long before Adam and Eve.

I suppose if we take the book of Genesis to be absolutely literal, then yes, this does seem a bit strange. However, I dont think we should take the book literally. (I'll spare you my neophyte ramblings on Qabalistic interpretation f the book of Genesis) Furthermore though, I Think its important to realize that Genesis was indeed written "After the fact", in a time when there were false gods. So, assuming that God really did talk to Adam and Eve in the woods, Adam and Eve certainly didn't record the event. Someone else, far later we can assume, did. And when they did, they had reason to work the notion of false gods into the story. This is the method of any good story teller when you're dealing with oral tradition. I don't think it invalidates Judaism as a religion or makes monotheism circumspect.

With regard to MErlin Stone--I hate to break it to you, but she's not much of a historian. She's not particularly accurate. Some evidence, and lots more wishful thinking. There certianly *have* been matriarchal cutlres (the Iriquois indians for example) but not the way Stone would have us believe. There's no evidence that early cultures were peace loving happy GOddess worshippers. Did they worship goddesses? Probably. That does make sense. But you, as a follower of a warrior goddess, know that the mother can be cruel, and certainly the early people knew that. Peace loving happy tree huggers they were likely not.

With regard to the angel of death--so what? Yep, according to JEwish hisotry, Yahweh slaughtered thousands of people--the first born. Ok. What does that mean? That Yahweh was not the loving, tender God of harmony JEws and Christiand would have us obelieve? Or does it possibly just mean that Yahweh is perhaps deeper, more multifaceted, less superficial than most pagans tend to think?

Yahweh did a lot of horrific things in the Bible. The guy was not really a Very Nice Guy.

Now lets look to the Dark Goddesses. They're Not Very Nice either. But they are cruel with purpose.

The same can be said of Yahweh. He is cruel with purpose. The dark goddesses, pagans quickly point out, are representative of the dark that must counter the light. They are necessary. The dark goddesses do a lot of very crul things themselves., But we don't look down our noses and Kali worshippers, or Lilith followers. In fact we laud them, saying theya re walking a path that gives strength to women, or that praises the dark and occult. So why can we not do the same for Yahweh, who, as the sole God in the Abrahamic faiths, must necessarily encompass both the dark and the light?

I know I must sound like some bible thumping anti pagan, and i'm so not. I'm a Wiccan, witch, magician-in-training. However, I think there is a lot to be said for the monotheisti faiths, if we're willig to stop bitching and moaning abotu how "unfair" or "biased" they are and start seeking out the similarities. The attitude of "I'm so prosecuted!Woe is me!" is getting old.

Tigerwallah
May 5th, 2001, 05:23 PM
Amberlaine, respectfully, what started my debate was the initial quote by bananabrain about how the pagan godesses were not accepted and had worshipping them altogtether been abolished (had MY traditions been abolished) then the ancient world would have been a better place. What was that? And am I wrong to defend my traditions. I really don't care if you think I'm right, or if you like what I have to say. It is my right to practice my religion as I see fit. If that means that I defend my ancestors and Godesses, well...I owe them that much.

I never said, nor believe that we were all tree huggers, neither did Merlin Stone. She acknowledges warrior pagans and dark goddesses. My personal beliefs are that good and bad need to exist together to make a whole. I also NEVER said that the ancient pagans lived in some peaceful Utopia. " These artifacts prove one very important thing - pagans were not lawless degenerates as the Bible would have you believe. To the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence of a society not so unlike the one we live in today - with laws and government, people living life in the pursuit of happiness, strong family structures, etc." I do not consider today's society a utopia, by any stretch of the imagination. I only say that there is proof that my ancestors had laws, government, and were not degenerates. Because the Bible says my people were degenerates, should I accept that? How is my defending my traditions worse than allowing the Bible to make a mockery of my traditions and insult my ancestors. If you consider that whining, well, that is your misguided opinion.
I fully acknowledge dark goddesses such as Kalli. I am no tree hugger. I am a warrior. It is who I am.

Attack my words, but do not critisize me for standing up for my traditions. I would expect anyone to stand up for what they believe in. I also do not base my opinions solely on Merlin Stone. Read back in my posts in this thread and you will see that. I didn't need to read Merlin Stone to believe what I believe. It was no revelation for me. I did not believe in Yahweh or that patriarcal religions were truthful from my first religion class at the age of 8. I have a strong ancestor memory, and an intimate relationship with my Goddesses. Pardon me for not being PC, but as you say, we aren't all tree huggers. Therefor, it is my right, it is my duty to myself and my Goddesses to not accept another religion's opinion that mine should never have been allowed to exist.
"So, assuming that God really did talk to Adam and Eve in the woods, Adam and Eve certainly didn't record the event. Someone else, far later we can assume, did. And when they did, they had reason to work the notion of false gods into the story. This is the method of any good story teller when you're dealing with oral tradition." - my point of the game of telephone, exactly. The Bible is revered as the word of god. Well, if you had folks adding in what they wanted to, doesn't that pollute the integrity of the book? Where does the word of God and the word of man seperate? Who among us can distinguish the word of God from that of a human with political ambitions and a soap box? I prefer ancient artifacts, they tell the story as it happened, maybe like our newspapers, not 100% acurately, but closer to the truth then a compilation of stories passed down by word of mouth for thousands of years.

amberlaine
May 7th, 2001, 12:53 PM
I was neither attacking you nor your words. I am only offering another perspective, as that is what I am, and what I do :)

Tigerwallah
May 7th, 2001, 07:05 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by amberlaine
I was neither attacking you nor your words. I am only offering another perspective, as that is what I am, and what I do :) [/QUOTE

Sorry for ranting on. Are you a Libra, by any chance? :D

amberlaine
May 7th, 2001, 07:41 PM
Nope. I"m a sagittarius. Moon is in Libra though, does that count? :p