Worlds First Religion, Worship Of The Goddess Supressed?

"PRIDE"

Yes... It's true. Goddess worship in the past was vast. But... Eventually she gave birth to a male.
One she grew to love and adore. Then the male expressed qualities of pure hearted spirit. This instilled in her a great sense of pride. So... Rather than see him pushed aside. She made him a king.
To make her happy and to show his appreciation he became of good king. And as king, he ruled.
She out did herself. But... We should all find the time to honor our parents. They are deserving.

Don't be so hasty to condemn masculine deities.
They were set up by inana. She took the name from infants who spoke the word "Nana". These days it's just baby gibberish. Their first few words spoken.
Nana is what children and infants call grandmothers.
It's not a lost world worshipping masculine deities.
It's just a world filled with remnants of a true love.

Let's worship those who come before us with deeds of kindness and responsibility. The elders deserve to pride themselves in their most prescious gifts.

Also... Watch out. If Jesus hears all this nonsense, he will cast us out of heaven.

I saw something similar with the egyptian lines, a matriarch of sorts.

Don't remember much of it, but that History would have to acknowledge a powerful female dynasty.

a reply to: JOHNNEIL

If it's so suppressed how do we know about it?

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: FyreByrd

Well if they were retelling of old tales, which takes of the scriptures could we be talking about?

I am assuming that it's the oldest because of said fossils, but those rememants could be 60000 years old, but if that's culture or a religion with natural order of things... that I will never tell.

And yes I accept that those rememants might not have no revelance to modern Hinduism at all.

Why not just call Judaism, Babylonian or Sumerian( I can never really tell the difference), and Christianity Greek and Judaism.

I don't get your point.... However....

The Fall of Innana from Gilgamesh is the basic story of a male god overthrowing the female one. The Sun of Ra and 'the Son of God' are the same stories.

I'll have to review my Campbell for this one.....

a reply to: Pinocchio

Yeah but whose pride?

Mens’.

In all our busy work with walls and kingdoms and treasures and nations, after the agricultural revolution, we chose to revere the male side and overthrow her because of OUR pride. We chose a stern angry Father to tell us how to be good sheep and submit.

Worked wonders for the TPTB since the coup against her and the successive monotheistic kabuki still holds firm..

of course we remember. It’s all there just as myths are

I’ve read something like this before and upon a quick check I found this interesting article about the shift from a matriarchal society to patriarchal system that currently DOMINATES the globe. It would seem in the past that people would heed the wisdom of the Matriarch as opposed to complying with the orders/laws of the Patriarch. One culture implies freedom to choose and doing so because you trust and value the wisdom and advice of their chosen leader whereas the other is about control where people conform out of fear of punishment. I find it interesting that things such as religion, colonialism & technological advances helped aid in the demise of matriarchal societies all around the world. All subjects that have implications that have given critical thinkers cause for concern over the years. I certainly know which kind of society I would prefer.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Nether do I with the various amount cultures and myth that can take from each other, really give me a splitting head ache. I ain't no body got that much time for that.

The sun of Ra and the son of God could be at odds though, even though both can be depicted as a solar diety having victory of a snake, and yet Jesus would call himswlf the morning star and the son of man. Who knows what he meant by that.

Point is like I said imitation a sign of flattery, wether it was out of product of the imagination and the environment, or out of spite. Like God slaying the leviathan in the book of Job, is actually no different then Zeus vs Typhon, or Marduk vs Tiamat. Hercules and Samson?

Then you got two entirely different cultures sharing almost similar stories with fairly convenient myths as well. The Aztecs beleived in a feathered serpent god whose a personification of Venus whose main rival was a Jaguar, while the Egyptians had Sekhmet, a cat goddess guarding Ra from Apep whose a serpent as well.

Is it a case of everyone ripping each other off, or everyone coming across similar circumstances and it being a product of the environment and humanities imagination? Thanks for the history lesson tho.

a reply to: JOHNNEIL

Truth is people used to worship all kinds of things things were obviously different then,so tommorow they find another,not anything extraordinary

Its impossible to state this ask fact. As we have only scratched the surface of ancient prehistory. Some has speculated that as far back as homo rabilis may off had a belief system That would be around 2 million years old..

Interesting read S&F

originally posted by: JOHNNEIL
There was no male ego to corrode in the seat of power, rather it was the softer feminine spirit that took the position of power as a way to naturally balance out the equation.

The ancient texts then show how an ancient war happened between the solar and lunar cults where the solar powers eventually overthrew the lunar (feminine) and then monotheism became the status quo. This caused mass division and made conquering and controlling easier over the next thousands of years.

Softer feminine? The feminine spirit in some species is the more dominant. If you take my experiences, women have been more cutthroat and rough in spirit as men have. Just because men have more muscles does not mean the spirit of woman, or the ego or consciousness, is softer. Ego is ego, doesn't matter which gender the conscious is.

That right away is an alert to show that the belief is wrong - it is one sided. The only truth in spirituality is the oneness of duality. It is the male and female in ONE. When people start taking sides, it signals utter destruction and downfall in their way of spiritual thinking. When you have a situation where people can take sides - it means people get split up. That is what the powers of America have been taking advantage of for centuries. Divide and conquer. Even Christianity has been splitting itself up since the birth of the religion - and that is why every Christian today basically insults Christ any time they speak or act.

Conquering and controlling are two different things. Conquering is a physical feat - to invade a city and overthrow its people. Controlling is to keep the truth away from a civilization and make it believe in things that are not true, so that they can be mentally enslaved by thinking that what is false is the truth. The reason why 2,000 years ago, the world powers sought to control the world and not conquer the world, is because they decided to write the bible and lie to the whole world about religion. It has nothing to do with your pagan source of information.

a reply to: JOHNNEIL

Ok before you read the rest of my reply, please understand that I am a Neopagan, specifically a Senistrognata or Págántacht (a Celtic Reconstructionist). I am very well familiar with prechrisitan faith. As I follow a rebirth of one.

Take that article with a grain of salt. There is evidence that in parts of the world that there were cults of the Goddesses, including the one/ones in the article. We do not know if it was the first religion, or will be be able to tell. What you have is a retelling of the Kurgan Thypothesis, which is currently considered not to be the best model. Though it does explain some things (as do the alternatives).

Like I said, understand, I am not an Abrahamic type attacking this. I am a follower of some deities, including being a servant of An Morrigan, who is a Goddess.

a reply to: JOHNNEIL

As the article shows, the worlds first organized, dominant religion in civilization history was worship of the goddess.

The angels who came to mate with the human species were called watchers by Enoch. As they perished in the flood of Noah and were imprisoned for forty generations, then released as roaming spirits among the living they became the Satan's which plague the living today. One of the watchers [name escapes me] became worshiped as the moon god Nanna. Nanna fell in love with the goddess named Ningal and procreated a daughter named Inanna. This same moon god of the antediluvian Nanna [Sin] was the god of all gods in this land of UR and his wife Ningal is that of which you have posted who became known as the queen of heaven.

Nanna is the moon god of the Islamic religion today and was Muhammad's chief deity as Muhammad was in power. He also was the chief deity as Abram 's father [Terah] sold his gods in his god shop and Ningal was still honored as the queen of heaven in Jeremiah 7:18 and Jeremiah 44:17-25 by the Hebrews. Some still believe Nanna [Sin] is the deity called Allah but will end that thought as it then becomes very controversial.

originally posted by: JOHNNEIL
...
The ancient texts then show how an ancient war happened between the solar and lunar cults where the solar powers eventually overthrew the lunar (feminine) and then monotheism became the status quo.

Monotheism Preceded Polytheism

EVOLUTIONARY thinking does not stop with its gradual development of man from inanimate matter. It also makes the supreme God a product of evolution. In the beginning primitive man had no concept of an Almighty God, this evolutionary thinking says. Man first evolved the idea of many gods, and from these many gods the concept of one Almighty God developed. So according to this theory monotheism evolved from polytheism, and it is the view that is generally taught with the same airy glibness and dogmatism that accompanies the teaching of organic evolution.
Life magazine of December 12, 1955, published the article “The Dawn of Religion,” with the subtitle: “Awed by the phenomena of nature and by the mysteries of life and death man evolved a belief in higher powers and rites to honor the spirit world.” Written by the evolutionist Lincoln Barnett, the article said:
...
The article, as is customary in evolutionary writings, cites an imposing list of scholarly authorities as proof of accuracy. This, of course, is no proof to anyone except those willing to follow men blindly.

Are there any facts to prove or disprove the speculation that polytheism preceded monotheism?

THE EVIDENCE FROM PRIMITIVE CULTURES

Scientists seek out the origins of religion by archaeological investigations of the mute remains of ancient peoples and by studying the religious beliefs of the most primitive cultures whose members still live on earth. Lincoln Barnett agrees with this and says that for this latter category the “prime representatives are the Aborigines of modern Australia.” He states: “That their religion has its roots in the depths of prehistory cannot be questioned. And that a similar, if less complex, form of belief prevailed among Palaeolithic men 100,000 years ago is also an indubitable fact.”

But when we go to the roots of these primitive religions we find, not polytheism, but monotheism, the belief in high gods, and the more crude and polytheistic elements of their worship are discovered to be later additions and indicate a degeneration from an original monotheism into polytheism. For example, among the Australian tribes those of the southeast are the oldest, and concerning their religion researcher W. Foy writes: “It is at first sight surprising to find, especially in South-East Australia, a belief in one god, known as ‘father’ or ‘grandfather,’ who is supposed to have created man and the principal phenomena of nature.” Foy adds that this one high god has a son at his side, “acting as mediator between him and man.”1 [Origin and Growth of Religion, by Dr. Wilhelm Schmidt, professor at the University of Vienna, pages 242, 243.]

...

In the Bible Abraham arrived in Canaan and then set up a unique belief system based on a Monotheism…a belief in just one God. Some 6-7 hundred years later, Joshua is said to have conquered Canaan, thereby establishing monotheism.

In the pantheon of Canaan however, their God Ale (who was a Canaanite God) had a wife, a female God Consort, who’s name was Asherah. Asherah worship was quite widespread in Jerusalem, according to various passages found in the Old Testament.

Archeologists discovered an artifact (about 35 years ago), at a Canaanite dig site, which contained an inscription of both the names Yahweh and his Consort Asherah together…which dates to about the 8th century BC.

The feminine aspect of God is found in many religions. Although it’s often surpressed or covered up in some way.

The Egytpitain “Ogdoad” is a curious one. The Ogdoad was essentially a system of eight deities. Four of these deities were male, and they each had a feminine counter part. Together each male and his consort, made up 4 powers/sources/elements, from which everything was created. The 4 being Water, Eternity, Darkness and Air.

Personally I think the Tetrogramaton and the Ogdoad are similar, if not the same concept; in that they both represent the Male and Feminine aspects/elements of the one creator God.


- JC

What are you talking about? Roman Catholicism operates in the open, and there's no shutting up this Pope, or nobody willing to put a sock in his pie hole, before he reduces his "church" to Deism.