Are Women The Natural Dominant Sex?

There is a big mystery about the 20th century that no-one seems to comment on. Throughout the last five thousand years of history it has been accepted that men are the dominant sex. This was true up until the end of the 19th century when women all over the world had less rights than a slave. Yet a hundred years later in the 21th century, women in the West have equal opportunity. What suddenly happened in the 20th century that women have gain more rights and power than they had over the last four thousand years?

In answer to this question people look to the work of the Suffragettes, women’s Liberation Movement and Feminists. Yet to be frank women have had it easy. If we say compared the Feminist struggle with say with the civil rights struggle of black people in USA, there is no comparison. The savage violence that black people have had to endure is incredible, with white lynch mobs being able to hang black people without fear of the law, and even today the majority of the prison population in USA are black people.

It is true some Suffragettes and Feminists have been victims of violence but it has not been in the same league as endured by black people, or even trade unionist fighting for workers rights. So why has it been the case that men have successfully kept women in virtual slavery for thousands of years, have suddenly caved in to Feminists demands, and gone belly up, without hardly a fight? Though I have to say this is not true in many Moslem countries where Feminists have been beaten up and murdered.

If you take a cork and hold it underwater it is very easy to hold it down but it will only stay there while you keep holding it in that position. If at any time you arm gets tired or you get fed up with keeping the cork underwater, and then let go, the cork will automatically rise to the top. This concept gives a good metaphor of what is happening today in the politics of female power.

For anyone who has read the history of patriarchy over the last five thousand years what it very striking is the great efforts needed to keep women powerless. Up until the end of the 19th century, there were laws to ensure that women couldn’t own any property or wealth. As the law stated that everything a woman had, was either owned by her father or husband. The law also make it very difficult for any woman to inherit property. Women were also barred from all jobs and professions except being a housewife, farm labour, servant or prostitute. So women were unable to acquire any wealth of power in her own right. Husbands were also encouraged to dominate their wives, and women had to swear to obey there husbands when they were married. The law even gave husbands the right to beat their wives with either a stick or whip.

In other cultures the laws oppressing women were even more strict than in the Western world. It was traditional for the Somalis people of Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti for a bride to start married life with a flogging from their husbands. It seems the newly wedded husband would wait for her in the bridal chamber with a whip in his hand. This was also true with the Sifon people of Tibet, who traditionally would again start of married life with the husband whipping his bride. In many places like Sicily, Ethiopia and Eastern Europe where is was commonplace for men to choose their bride through kidnap and rape. A young man would pick out which girl he wanted to marry and then with a few friends kidnap and rape her. The girl was then force by social custom to marry her rapist. This went on in Sicily up until the 1960s and it still goes on in Ethiopia.

In India there is the custom of “Suttee”. This is where when a husband dies his wife is put on the funeral pile to be burnt alive. So what is the origins of this very barbaric custom? It seems that in the past women would frequently poison their husbands, so to discourage this, all women were made to die with their husbands. So the Suttee tradition was created by a brutal sex war between men and women in India. Which men won by simply being more violent than women.

In China there was the tradition of foot binding. Again this is a very strange custom, but the end result is that women were left crippled. So this tradition suggest that at one time men were so frighten of women running away, that they had to cripple them to stop them doing this.

Yet we are taught at school and in our history books that men have always been the dominant sex going back to early Stone-Age. The irony is that if it is natural for men to be the dominant sex, why do then men had to create very oppressive laws and customs against women? If it is natural for men to be the dominant sex then they shouldn’t need any laws, custom or propaganda to force women into submission. For instance, the only reason way we have laws against stealing is because many people do steal. If people didn’t steal there would be no reason to have laws against this behaviour. The same is true of all customs and traditions. The custom of marriage with people swearing to be true to each other, is only needed because people do tend to have sex outside of marriage. If pair bonding was completely natural for human beings, then we wouldn’t need customs like marriage, enforced by laws and social censure.

This then means that oppressive laws and customs to keep women in a subservient position, suggests that it is not natural for women to be the submissive sex. If it was natural for men to be the dominant sex then there would be no reason for men to have oppressive laws and customs to keep women in bondage.

The great fear men have of women strongly suggests that it might be natural for women to be the dominant sex. Men then found they could dominate women through violence and intimidation. Which has been true over the last five thousand years. Now it seems many men today do not want the inflict violence onto women, and this will allow women to take their rightful place as the rulers of our world.

William Bond
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DivineGoddess

God The Mother

GOD THE MOTHER

By William Bond and Pamela Suffield


IN THE WESTERN WORLD, we are all familiar with the concept of a male god, whether the idea comes from Christianity, Judaism or Mohammedanism. When we think of a male god, at the back of our minds is a picture of an old man in the sky, who has a certain set of laws, rules and regulations we must all obey. If we follow these rules we will be loved and approved of by god, but if we disobey, we will be condemned and punished. Even today, when the power of this belief has been weakened, and many do not believe in a god at all, the image of Jehovah from the Old Testament is still very strong. Though we may consciously reject this view of god, subconsciously and within the structures of our society, the idea lives on. When we feel we have done the wrong thing, or 'sinned', we tend to feel guilty or unworthy in some way, and expect punishment. It is so ingrained in us, that to a large extent the 'Jehovah' figure is the only way we can envisage God. We appear to have only two choices; either this male god exists or there is no God at all.
Jesus Christ, through the teachings that have come down to us in the New Testament, attempted to offer an alternative, by describing a God of Love, who loves us all no matter what we do or who we are. Unfortunately, even though Christianity attempts to uphold the teachings of Christ, we find when we discuss the nature of God with many Christians, that they are still heavily influenced by the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and see God as wrathful, judgmental and punishing unless you 'get it right'.
However, in the second half of the Twentieth Century, another concept of God has appeared. This time God is not a man but a woman. Its promulgators talk about 'the Great Goddess' or 'the Great Mother', who existed in the Western World before the advent of male-centred religions and before Christianity achieved its dominance of the whole of Europe. Many books have been written on the necessity for our society to turn towards the Great Mother, who has been ignored in the Western world for millenia.
On the face of it, assessing the idea of a female Creator in a purely intellectual way, it seems quite ridiculous. Why should it matter whether God is male or female? Surely a Supreme Deity is beyond being male or female at all. Eastern religions like Buddhism and Taoism already accept the genderlessness of God. In Taoism, we are presented with the concept of the 'Tao', which means 'The Way'. There is no entity or image which can be worshipped or appealed to. Buddhism is similar, but since its ideas were taught by an historical man, Gautama Buddha, he is the one worshipped, despite the fact that he insisted he was not a God.
If we were assessing the nature of God in an entirely logical way, the concept of 'The Tao' would be the truest representation, since it perceives of a supreme entity as pure energy, beyond all ideas of human form and character. The trouble with this idea is that human beings find it difficult to grasp what the Tao is really like. It is ever mysterious, and beyond the comprehension of our limited minds. We seem to need an image that we can relate to, that we can understand in human terms. The truest representation of God which we can grasp, and which fits in with our growing ideas of a loving deity, is of God as the Great Mother. A masculine god is omnipotent, but judges, condemns and gives only limited love. His power is used to punish transgressors and reward the faithful. Man does the same. However, when you think of a mother, the picture is different. An ideal mother gives her children unconditional love which never changes. No matter what the child does, it will always be loved, supported in its growth, and nourished by the mother. Even if the child abuses her or commits horrendous crimes within society, this love never disappears. A wise mother obviously encourages loving behaviour, and discourages mistakes, but her love never wavers.
When we think of the Great Mother, we are thinking of an entity who will love us all, for ever, because we are her creations,- her children, to use the earthly metaphor. This is a completely different picture from the one drawn by belief in a male god, which relies on the threat of punishment, or withdrawal of love and rewards, to keep us in line. Since it is now time for the 'feminine' side of our Creator to be accepted and valued by men, it makes sense to worship a female deity. Only in this way will we begin to balance our society, which has denigrated and denied The Great Mother's gifts for millenia.
As we all know, in our society there are many people who do not obey the rules of the Church and still escape punishment. Some of them seem to flout all of the laws of society and religion yet still prosper and thrive. Others obey all the rules, behave in a very humble and loving way, yet seem to receive no reward for their actions. They are often despised and taken advantage of. The Church avoids the implications of this by saying that such people will be happy in the afterlife, and the others will go to Hell. Since this is only a speculation, it is of little practical help to those suffering in the here and now. The priests of the god can only offer a better life when we are dead - what they cannot deliver is happiness and joy now. In contrast to this, the priestesses of the Great Mother can promise peace, joy and paradise on this Earth while we are alive.
To be in paradise does not require us to be disciplined and sacrificial for the sake of future rewards; all it requires is a change in attitude. In the world of the god, whether it is the one reflected to us through Christianity, Judaism, Mohammedanism or Science (which is our latest male religion) we are offered a world of conflict and fear. We have to accept rules and regulations to keep us in check; we have to accept the masculine world of aggression and conquest, whether it is conquest of ourselves or others. All harmonious ideas of joy and happiness are looked down on as impossible, leaving us with only suffering as the route to salvation. In this world view, we learn and achieve only through struggle and pain, so it becomes an inevitable and necessary part of existence.
When we look to the Feminine and the Great Mother, there is a different perspective. The Great Mother will always look after us, no matter what we do and no matter what we believe in or say. There is no requirement to subscribe to a particular religion or way of behaving to 'earn' her love - she loves us all, and equally, anyway. The Feminine is a concept of harmony, of bringing together, of joy and peace. The priests of the god see a world that is out of harmony with itself, where only the strongest survive and the weakest go to the wall. This is not necessary.
The feminine world-view shows us harmony in everything - on Earth, and in the whole of Creation. This idea of the essential harmoniousness of creation was recently brought out very clearly in the book 'Gaia' by James Lovelock. It is interesting that he named his book after the ancient Earth Goddess, who was worshipped as the original deity. Though she was at one time acknowledged as the first to emerge from the primaeval state of Chaos, later male-dominated cultures devalued her and placed the sky gods like Uranus and Zeus above her.
The truth of existence is that how we see the earth we live on and our fellow human beings, shapes our lives. Our desires and fears act as magnets, drawing towards us the reality which we feel is the 'true' one. If we believe in conflict and limited love, that if we do not behave in a certain way we will not be loved or rewarded, then this will be the reality we create. We will become aggressive or defensive towards other people because we expect them to hurt us or exploit us. This in turn attracts to us the very aggression we fear, and confirms our beliefs. If we believe that only the strongest and most ruthless survive, and that this is by divine order, then we will have no qualms about exploiting the earth and our fellow man. But always lurking will be the fear that someone even stronger or more ruthless will snatch everything we have won away from us. If we also allow ourselves to judge others and find them better or worse than us, stronger or weaker, then we live in fear of others judging us. We create a god who does this when we die, sending some to Heaven and the rest to Hell based on his judgement of our worth.
The history of our species for the last few thousand years has been centred on conflict. Our idea of 'right' is based on force, which is a particularly male attribute. A good example of this can be seen if we look at the Falklands war. Britain sent a Task Force to the Falkland Islands to retake them from Argentina. If Britain had not possessed a strong Navy and Army then the Islands would now belong to Argentina. Each side in the conflict believed that justice was on its side, yet it was superior strength which prevailed. Although in many ways we are more enlightened than in the past, our society is still based on the idea that 'might is right'. The boundaries of countries, the distribution of wealth and land and the use of a particular language, owe their existence to the use of force on weaker people. Within each country, an unwritten law states that the more powerful you are, the more you can ignore the law and the rights of others less powerful than you. Once you have accumulated wealth and power by the use of aggression, then you invoke the force of the Law, the Police and Religion to prevent other equally rapacious people from relieving you of your booty. In such a world, no-one can be happy. Even if you are strong and successful, there is always fear that one day your strength and aggression will fail and you will become prey to others.
But if we were to return to worshipping the Great Mother, our direction would inevitably be towards harmony. There would therefore be less likelihood of aggression towards others, and even less likelihood of aggression towards ourselves. Since we would look for evidence of harmony, it would be there, and since no-one would be perceived as a threat to us, we would not provoke aggression in others or draw it to ourselves. We would be more likely to co-operate with our fellow man and have no reason to exploit him. In a harmonious Universe there is no need to fight for what you need - all resources, whether material, emotional or spiritual, are available to everyone because they believe that this is the case. The idea of scarcity can only exist when there is fear that you may miss out on something that you need, and that only you can provide it, by right behaviour, force or belonging to the 'right' religion or group.
There would be no reason for anyone to feel unworthy, as we do now, because we would know that we are loved by the Great Mother. Though we may make mistakes, this in no way changes her love, and she is always ready to help and support us. We would no longer have the inner conflicts bequeathed to us by the male priests of the god, reflecting in the world as strife and struggle, thus allowing us to live at peace with ourselves and the world.
Unfortunately, throughout recorded history, we have only known a patriarchal society. Though there is some evidence that matercentric (guided by women) societies have existed, we have no real way of telling how they functioned. All evidence that these societies existed, and were harmonious, was ruthlessly suppressed by the male-dominated cultures who took over from them, and where it could not be eliminated, was reinterpreted to support the ideas of the prevailing religion and culture. However, there are stories of a Golden Age, which existed before recorded history, in many religions and mythologies. In the East, the 'Tao Te Ching' talks of a time when everyone lived in harmony, and catalogues the changeover from this period of peace to the present patriarchal society. Initially, in this Golden Age, there was no conflict of any kind, nor any rules and laws. Gradually, these were introduced until we arrived by slow degrees at our present fear-ridden society.
Today, society is yet again changing, and we will in the future progress into another matercentric society. Obviously, there will be those who oppose this, some because they wish to retain patriarchy, and others because they believe that the ideal society is one in which men and women are equal. This is not yet possible, even if we could define what 'equal' means. As recent research has shown, ( in 'Brain Sex' by Anne Moir and David Jessel) there is a fundamental difference between the male and female brain, which manifests itself in the way men and women think and feel. While men can ignore feelings, and rely on 'logic' to make decisions, it is necessary for our evolution to move into a female-centred society, one in which we worship a female deity and in which men can learn to care for others.
It is possible that in the far future we will have a society in which neither sex is dominant, but at our present stage of evolution, it is spiritually necessary and inevitable that we move into a matercentric society, as we will explain in subsequent chapters. This will benefit both men and women. At the moment, our patriarchal society, with its many rules and regulations, intolerance and aggression, gives immense advantages to men, because it reflects their way of seeing the world. There is no real way that women, or men for that matter, can achieve equality in such a society. We are seeing a drive for freedom within many countries of the World, and a growing acceptance of other's ways of living. Many patriarchal structures which restrict freedom are being eroded or destroyed. In this climate, women will be far less disadvantaged than before, because they have less need for order and hierarchy than men, and because men will not be able to use aggression and logic in the same ruthless way they are accustomed to. As men see that women's ability to mobilise both intellect and feeling in decision-making leads to greater stability, they will no longer wish to dominate. They will see clearly that they will be far happier directed by women than by other men, and gladly allow them to guide society.

First published in "Gospel of the Goddess" available from. -

http://www.scribd.com/doc/4059021/Gospel-Of-The-Goddess

Printed version available from.-

http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=786000

Why The Supreme Creatrix Is Feminine

In the last four thousand years of recorded history it has been accepted world wide that our creator is a man, so much so, that many people today cannot imagine a Supreme Creator as anything but a male. In accepting the masculine nature of our Creator we have constructed a masculine, male dominated world. This world has reflected the masculine values of competition and aggression. The result is that we have been brainwashed for thousands of years to believe that we live in a world of conflict, hatred and suffering, to the extent that we now believe that this is the only world there is. So we are unable to believe that a world of love and harmony is possible and assume it is unrealistic because we don't know any different. We don't realize that the masculine world of conflict is created by our beliefs about ourselves. It only requires to change our beliefs and respect and accept the feminine will bring about a more loving and caring world to the degree we want it to be.

In recent years Atheists have rejected the concept of God altogether because as they rightly point out: "If there was a intelligent God who created us all, why is there so much suffering in the world?" A question that male dominated religions like Christianity and Mohamadism have no answer for, except to blame the suffering on another God called the Devil. Yet if God created everything then he must have created the Devil as well. So it means we are created by a very imperfect God whom it seems makes many mistakes. According to patriarchal priests, not only did God make the mistake of creating a powerful Devil, he also created us so imperfect that we live in sin and do many things that are against the will of God. Yet it seems, this God then has the audacity to blame us all for his mistakes and threaten us with hell-fire because he failed to make us all perfect.

So it seems we are left with believing in an insane and imperfect Creator God or a belief in atheism that says that life and the universe was created by accident and not by an intelligence. This means we have the choice of either living in an insane universe created by an insane God or live in a pointless and meaningless universe created by accident. Yet there is an alternative to these two beliefs. At the beginning of recorded history societies believed we were created by a Mother Goddess or The Great Mother. At first glance this doesn't seem to be much of an alternative, because how can the sex of our creator make any difference?

If we accept that the masculine represents competition, conflict, aggression, war and hatred, all these forces come from one force which is separation. On the other hand, feminine values are: Love, compassion and empathy. All these forces come together to represent Oneness. So in other words the One is feminine. The One is all that there is, so we are all part of the One. Separation from the One is masculine which allows us all to become individuals. So the relationship between the feminine and the masculine, is the relationship between the One and the individuals that make up our world. This is why the concept of a male supreme Creator is separated from the world. He creates the world but doesn't live in it, while the concept of the feminine Creator is that the universe is the One, that is to say, the Great Mother.

Some mystic traditions attempt to claim that the One is masculine but this becomes a contradiction in terms. For how can the competitive masculine become One? So this belief makes life very difficult for mystics who attempt to tune into a masculine One. Some religions like Taoism and Buddhism have the concept of a genderless One, though it has to be admitted that in the Tao-Te-Ching it does suggest that the One is feminine. Although a strong argument can be made that the One is beyond concepts like male and female, it is no help to us, for how can we relate to something that is not in any way human and therefore beyond human experience and understanding? We are forced to put human characteristic onto the One to make it understandable to us.

So it means for us that the Mother Goddess is the One. She is all that there is, unlike the Creator God who is separate from the world and then is separated from himself in being two Gods the father God and the Devil. We are given the illusion that we are born from the Great Mother so we imagine we are separated from her. This gives us the opportunity to experience individuality. So we become the children of the Great Mother to whom she has given the gifts of individuality and independence through the illusion of separation.

The Ancients knew this and showed it in a very ancient symbol of a snake swallowing its tail. The snake's body forms a complete circle. The attribute of the circle is not only the feminine symbol of the vagina but it represents the whole or the One. The snake represents the penis so is a masculine symbol. With the snake's body forming the circle it shows the masculine on the boundaries of the One. It means that the masculine is connected with the One but also can be seen in this symbol as outside of the One. It therefore becomes the perfect symbol showing the relationship between the One and the individual.

Another ancient symbol saying the same thing is represented in Roman Catholic Churches all over the world in the image of the Virgin Mary holding a male baby. The Virgin Mary represents the feminine One and the male baby represents the masculine individual. Roman Catholics priests will tell you that this image only represents the mother of Jesus Christ holding him as a child. Yet this image is far older than Christianity. Also to some Roman Catholics this image is far more important to them than the image of Christ on the Cross. Strangely many followers of the Virgin Mary call her, "The Mother of God" which should be in Christian terms blasphemy as it suggests an ancient pagan idea that The Great Mother created God. Roman Catholic priests will point out that this saying only means that the Virgin Mary is the mortal mother of Jesus Christ. Yet if that is true then surely what the followers of the Virgin Mary should be calling her is, "The mortal Mother of Jesus." Long before Christianity, the ancients called the Great Goddess, "The Mother of all the Gods," which is very similar to what the followers of the Virgin Mary call her today. This suggests that it is a traditional saying older than the Christian Church.

In the ancient Egyptian religion there is a similar image and that is of the Goddess Isis holding her baby Horus. Some scholars have suggested that the image of the Virgin Mary holding her child comes directly from the Image of the Goddess Isis doing the same thing. In the legend of Isis, she was married to Osiris who is in conflict with his brother Seth. In this conflict Seth murders Osiris and cuts him up into many pieces and scatters them all over Egypt. Isis then goes out in search of these pieces. Putting them back together she brings Osiris back to life to have a child from him. From this union the child Horus is born and when he grows up he continues the conflict with Seth.

In this legend Isis takes no part in the conflict; her role is that of a healer. The conflict between Osiris and Seth that brings about Osiris being scattered into many pieces gives a clear symbol that competition and conflict causes separation. Isis brings the pieces back together again making the separated One again. Yet in healing the masculine as represented by Osiris all she does is allow the competition and conflict to continue in the war between Horus and Seth. So this legend tells about the dance between the feminine as Isis and masculine as Osiris, Horus and Seth . The masculine continually creates separation and the feminine continually heals and restrains the separation. The role of the feminine Isis is to prevent the separation going to the extreme and destroying itself.

Some scholars have recently made the controversial point that Christianity came from the Ancient Isisian Egyptian religion as well and Judaism. One of the points they make is the way Osiris died and was brought back to life again is similar to the way Jesus in the New Testament was also executed and resurrected. This makes sense as the gentleness and caring of Isis and Jesus are in stark contrast to the judgmental and revengeful God of Judaism. This suggests that the forgiving and caring side of the teachings of Jesus may of came from the teachings of the Goddess Isis.

Another ancient legend is that of the Hindu Goddess Kali. In this legend the Gods were exhausted by wars with demons whom it seems were winning the war. This is of course typical masculine behaviour calling enemies demons or devils which justifies attacking and fighting them. So the Gods call for help from Kali or Devi the Great Mother Goddess, depending which version of this story is read. Kali/Devi goes into battle with the demons and kills them all until she is left with the Demon King. The Demon King appeals to her sense of justice, claiming she has many fierce Goddesses to help her such as, Durga, Chamunda, Ambika. But she replies, "I am all alone in the world, who else is there besides me". This tells us clearly that she is the One. Kali/Devi then joins in battle with the Demon King but finds no matter how many pieces she cuts off him these pieces then create other demons that in turn attack her. This symbolizes clearly that war is not the way to overcome the masculine and separation. Because it is war and conflict that makes the masculine stronger as it creates more and more separation. So in the end Kali solves this problem by swallowing the Demon King whole, bringing the masculine back into the One.

The legend goes on to say that having defeated the demons, Kali becomes intoxicated by blood and goes on to destroy the rest of mankind. The Gods are powerless to stop her. In a desperate attempt to prevent the destruction of the whole of mankind, the God Siva comes down from heaven and lays lifeless at her feet. Kali walks all over him. Seeing him lifeless at her feet her blood lust evaporates and the world is saved. This part of the legend shows us that once wars are started then there is no end to them. All over the world we see wars between traditional enemies who are unable to forgive each other and wars continue generation after generation. In other words conflict creates hatred and hatred creates more conflict. This cycle can only be broken when the masculine represented by the God Siva, surrendering to the feminine represented by Kali.

The ancient Greeks and Romans represented love, through the Goddesses Aphrodite and Venus. Somehow it makes sense to have a Goddess representing love. Jesus in the New Testament attempted to promote the idea of a loving Father God, yet this never caught on even among Christians who mostly preferred the angry and judgmental Jehovah of the Old Testament. Many Christians also have problems with the image of Jesus himself who comes across as a very meek and mild man and therefore is seen as a bit of a wimp. This is why many Christians prefer the more warlike and macho prophets of the Old Testament and are more likely to quote them than Jesus.

So it means if we choose to worship a male God and claim he is our creator, then we are in effect worshipping the male principles of competition, conflict, aggression and separation. Which creates the great suffering we see in our world. History has proven this to be true with Christianity which hasn't been a history of forgiveness, tolerance and "loving thy neighbour" as preached by Jesus. Christianity has a history of intolerance, war, genocide and hatred. The massacres of the Cathars, and Witches and the wars of the Crusaders and later on the countless wars between the Roman Catholics and Protestants, the genocide of the native American and Australian peoples shows clearly how intolerant and warlike Christian societies have been. The same is true of the Moslems who also worship a male God. They have just as bad a record of intolerance, wars and genocide as the Christians have.

If on the other hand we worship a Goddess as our Creator we are then allowing ourselves to also worship the ideals of love, harmony and Oneness. Unfortunately in all of recorded history we have no clear record of what a society would be like that worships a Creatrix Goddess. We know of societies that have worshipped both Goddesses and Gods, like the Ancient Greeks, Romans or Egyptian but they made a male the Creator God. These societies had far more religious tolerance than the later Christian and Moslem civilizations. The same is true of the Hindus in India who worship both Gods and Goddesses. They also have more religious tolerance than the Moslems in Northern India and Pakistan. Yet we cannot say a society worshipping deities of both sexes is very much less warlike than societies who only worship Gods This is because the priests of male Gods are competitive with the followers of Goddesses. This forces priests or the priestesses of Goddess Temples to be as competitive in return to survive. So the love, peace and harmony of Goddess worship becomes impossible while other people worship Gods and separation and interfere with those who worship Oneness.

So it seems that Oneness and separation are in conflict with each other but it is not the nature of Oneness to compete with separation. Yet separation sees this non-competitive nature as a threat to its existence. This is because the foundation of separation is an illusion. If we no longer believed in separation then we all would become One and lose our individuality. Feminists have pointed out in many books how men have dominated women over many centuries through violence and intimidation. So even though it is more natural for women to love, care and empathize with others, men are able to brutalize women to the degree they are forced to accept masculine values of competition, aggression, intolerance and hatred.

Yet although separation is in conflict with Oneness there also seem to be an attraction to one another. Traditionally men have dismissed women as being weak and illogical. Yet most men are very attracted to women. Likewise even though men have traditionally abused women, it still doesn't stop women being very attracted to men. So does this suggest that the One as the Great Mother and separation as masculinity need each other?

If we are all One, we would live in a world of peace and harmony, simply because if we are all of one mind then conflict of any kind becomes impossible. Yet in this Oneness relationships become impossible, because if we are all one, whom can we relate to? If there is nothing outside of the One then a world of Oneness becomes static. It just Is. It becomes perfection and once something becomes perfect there is no reason to move on from that perfection. This is why the feminine One needs the masculine separation to create relationships and movement. Unfortunately if the masculine is not controlled or restrained by the feminine it will quickly move into a vicious cycle of fear, hatred, chaos and destruction.

Many of us might claim we would like to live in a world of love and harmony. Yet we betray ourselves every time we read a fictional book or watch TV or a film that is about conflict and suffering. Men enjoy action stories and films involving extreme violence. Women prefer soap operas or romances but even in these stories there is still great conflict. No romantic story would be interesting if there wasn't a breakdown in the relationship before the happy ending. So we have to admit to ourselves that we are fascinated by conflict and suffering. If we admit to this then we also have to admit that we have conflict and suffering in our lives because we want them. The truth is that most people would fear a world that was in complete harmony because it would be very boring.

Yet living in a world of separation then makes peace and harmony become totally impossible. Separation creates fear, hatred and destruction. So a masculine society becomes self-destructive and without the influence of the feminine it will destroy itself. For the last few thousand years we have seen the conflict caused by men becoming the dominant sex. Creating countless wars and genocide. Yet in that time even though women have been the submissive sex they have still worked very hard on men to civilize them. Men complain frequently that all women want to manipulate and change them. Traditionally in their own quiet way women do change men and greatly modify the excess of conflict and hatred that men indulge in. This is why in very male dominated countries like Islam, men traditionally avoid the company of women as much as possible because they fear that to be with women, will make men "soft".

Without the subtle influence of women, men would have destroyed themselves long ago. During the cold war between the West and the USSR both sides made and deployed enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over. During this war both sides became very close to using these weapons. There was one incident where the USSR very nearly launched all her nuclear weapons because of a computer error. So we can see that had men became even slightly more aggressive in their nature, we as a species would have become extinct.

We have a choice. We are able to be One and therefore live in a world of static harmony. Or we continue to live in a world of separation where we can have relationships with others. This then becomes a more dynamic world but such a world leads of fear, hatred suffering and finally to destruction.

So it means the feminine One, needs the masculine separation to give it dynamism and relationships. While the masculine separation needs the feminine One to give it love harmony and peace to prevent it from destroying itself. So how is it possible for these very two very different forces to work together? This seems to be impossible because the One and separated are totally different. The masculine mode of separation greatly fears the feminine One. This is because under the influence of the One he might lose his individuality. The feminine for obvious reasons also fears the masculine separation, because for thousands of years her love for the masculine, has always been returned with hatred and abuse.

Are the fears of the masculine justified? In accepting the feminine Oneness will he lose all individuality? As the feminine One needs the masculine separation to have a relationship with it, then we can say that the masculine fears are justified. The feminine One is only able to love, as fear and hatred within the One is impossible. So when a women returns love from a man who shows he hates her, she is threatening him with her love as he fears he will lose his individuality if he returns her love with love. Yet women themselves are individuals as well. Women are able to love, empathize and cooperate with others and yet do not lose their individuality.

Imagine a world where there are no males. A world where women were able to reproduce without men. Without the divisions created in society by men perhaps women will empathize with each other to such a degree that they would lose all individuality. This might have happened to matriarchal societies of the past where women dominated societies became so peaceful that they began to stagnate. So the masculine had to be encouraged to bring new dynamism into society. Yet because of the competitive nature of the masculine, it competed with the feminine and in the end took control and dominated the feminine. To the degree of claiming that it was a masculine God that created the world. This created a masculine society with all the conflict, fear, hatred and suffering we see in our recorded history. So because the masculine moved out of the control of the feminine, it means we have moved from one extreme to the other.

So is this the only choice we have? Of a dynamic masculine world that is basically self-destructive, or a loving and peaceful feminine world that is static. Can't we have both? Can we not have a loving world that is also dynamic. In other words, a world that is both individual and at One at the same time.

In the past men have greatly feared and hated very feminine women who have given them love in return for hatred and abuse. This suggests that the conflict between the One and separation only comes about when the One is too feminine and the individual is too masculine. So this means that there might be a middle way between these two extremes. It is possible for women to learn from the masculine and men to learn from the feminine?

This in theory should be the feminist relationship where both men and women are equals. Yet as we have seen such relationships are not very peaceful. In recent years marriage councillors have become a boom industry to try and fix up the conflict between couples, as more and more relationship break down and end in divorce. In fact the traditional patriarchal marriage where the man is the dominant partner was more stable than the feminist's equal relationships of today.

This is because of the way men think and feel. As man is very competitive equality doesn't come naturally for him because in his mind he is always thinking in terms of winners and losers. He is happy to be the dominant partner or the submissive partner. But to be the equal partner is something that is totally alien to his nature. Men are by nature game players and to them life is a game of winners and losers. We can see this clearly when men had ideals of creating a equal society. The result was the French revolution and later Communism. Both attempts only made society only slightly more equal than other male dominated societies. In the end this experiment was seen as a failure because not only did men totally fail to create a equal society, communist societies began to stagnate when equality was forced on men.

This is because men and women are motivated by very different things. The feminine is motivated by love for others. Most women are more than happy to spend their whole lives caring and looking after other people, like children, husbands, old people and animals. The masculine on the other hand is motivated by competition and without competition men lose their strongest motivation.

Men are able to some degree to live in harmony with women when they are the dominant partner. Or as it seems in recent times if she is the dominant partner. In these relationships women play the dominant and masculine role, while men play the submissive and feminine role. Yet this doesn't mean that the sexes completely swap roles. Just because a woman is playing a masculine role it doesn't mean she has to lose her contact with the One and lose her ability to love and care for others. Likewise because a man is playing a feminine role it doesn't mean he has to lose his individuality.

When the masculine separation stops competing with the feminine One as it does in a Fem-Dom relationship when the man surrenders to the woman, then harmony between the sexes becomes possible. When the masculine continues to compete as in a traditional patriarchal relationship or a feminist political correct relationship then harmony between the sexes becomes impossible. Women representing femininity and Oneness might be able to live in relationships of equality and cooperation. But men representing masculinity and separation find equality and cooperation very difficult. To him the only type of relationship that makes sense is a relationship where either he is in charge or this partner is in charge. If that is not clearly defined then he will continue to compete with his partner until it is mutually agreed that he dominates her or she dominates him. In other words the masculine mind needs a clearly defined "pecking order" for him to have relationships with others.

To create a caring society of peace, harmony and love which is dynamic where all people do not lose their individuality, requires us to accept that the One is feminine so we need to worship a Mother Goddess as our creatrix. We don't have make the feminine the total ideal and reject individuality. Women have to take the lead and play the assertive masculine role, yet not lose their contact with the one, while men have to learn how to play the feminine role of caring for others and yet not lose their individuality.

The Great Mother has the same problem as a mortal mother. If a mother looks after her children too much she can ensure their safety, but in the process she doesn't allow them to grow. On the other hand if she gives them far too much freedom they will grow and learn how to look after themselves yet are more likely to be hurt. As children of the Great Mother we have demanded from her more freedom to look after ourselves. In doing so we have created the world we now live in. Unfortunately in not knowing what we are doing we have created a world of fear and suffering. It is now time to return to the Great Mother and to Oneness. To accept the guidance and wisdom of women who are her representatives on this Earth.

For so long we have accepted a male God and masculine values in our world that we no longer believe in, or even know, that there is an alternative to this. Yet there is an alternative and that is the Oneness of the Mother Goddess. It is not a matter of choosing between these alternatives because we can choose both if we wish to. We can live in a masculine world of separation, conflict and suffering. Yet when this becomes too difficult we have the choice to return to Oneness and harmony again. But we need the awareness of the feminine One to have this choice.

This article was first published at. - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DivineGoddess

The Compassionate Goddess

In the western world we have been brought up to believe in a angry and uncaring God who judges and condemns us. Some people have attempted to get away from this Judo-Christian God and try to see him as a loving God as portrayed by Jesus in the New Testament. But old habits die hard. Even though many people try to see God as a loving God. We all live in a world of suffering and people unconsciously assume it is because we are "sinful" in the eyes of God and this is why he will not help us. Because for what other reason are we living in a world of suffering?

This unconscious argument is supported by atheists who have put forward a argument against the existence of God, which goes: If God loves us all, as stated by Jesus Christ, then why are we living in a world of suffering? Which suggests that either there isn't a God or that he is indifferent to our suffering.

In the Bible it states that; "God make us in his own image". If we are to think of a God who has the great intelligence and power to create the universe. Then as we all are his creations we should be all perfect. Because a being with such power and intelligence should be able to create us perfect. Yet I doubt if any person thinks that they are perfect and I also doubt if anyone thinks that we live in a perfect world.

The Bible gets around this paradox by saying that; we were led astray from this perfection by the Devil. Yet who is the Devil? The Bible says he is a fallen angel. Yet if God has created everything then it means he has created the Devil as well. Which again suggests this powerful being of unlimited power and intelligence has again created something imperfect.

So from out point of view we have a choice: We either believe in a imperfect God who is seems doesn't know what he is doing. And is willing to blame his own shortcoming on to us. To the degree of punishing us for his mistakes. Or that we don't believe in a God at all. So that the universe and life appeared by accident. Which suggest we live in a meaningless and pointless universe.

Which is a very depressing picture. It means that if we are to believe consciously or unconsciously in atheistism or the angry imperfect God. Then it means there is no hope for us all. It means we are forced to live in this world of suffering for ever with no redemption. So it means that such beliefs will have a very negative effect on anyone who believes in them, so it is not a wonder people look for happiness through money, power, drink and drugs.

What is the way out of these very negative beliefs? How can we give ourselves hope in a better life and future for us all? The answer is to change the sex of God so he is not a father God but a Mother Goddess. Once we begin to look at our creator as a Mother which makes more sense as it is the Mother who give birth. Then we begin to see life in a very different way. We begin to understand there is hope for us all and that we do not have to live in a world of suffering.

Anyone who has been brought up as a Christian should know the story of The Prodigal Son which is a parable by Jesus. Briefly it is about a son who leaves his father to make his own way in the world. But leaving the security of his father everything starts to go wrong for him. He is robbed and cheated and soon finds himself living in desperate poverty. In the end he swallows his pride and goes back to his father and is greeted with kindness and consideration by the father.

The meaning of this parable is that we all are Prodigal Sons and daughters. And the father in this story is the idea of the Loving Father God that Jesus unsuccessfully tried to promote. The reason why Jesus was unsuccessful in promoting the Loving Father God image was because most men are not kind and loving of others. We see men who attack each other and go to war with each other. In fact a loving man is seen as something of a wimp. Which is the image Jesus has. People have preferred the image of the angry and dogmatic Old Testament God, because at least he is a real man with attitude. Not realising what a image does to the people and the society that believes in such a God.

It is far easier for see a Mother as being loving and caring of us all. Then to try and create a image of a loving and caring father because even the best father tend to give their children conditional love. So why is this so important? What difference does the image we have of our creator makes to our lives and the society we live in? Simply that if our Creator is a Mother Goddess. Or as She was known in prehistoric time The Great Mother. Then we can believe that she loves us all unconditionally in the same way a human mother loves her children. Which is all very well you may ask: But if that is true why are we living in a world of suffering?

As the Bible says we are created in our creators image and if we accept that, then the problems of the Great Mother is similar to that of a mortal mother. And through this understanding we then begin to make sense of our lives. Any mother who has children come up with a real dilemma: Because she loves her children unconditionally she doesn't want to see her children hurt or suffer in any way. Yet she also knows that if she is to mollycoddle them too much and give them constant protection. They are unable to live lives of their own and learn how to look after themselves. So if she is a wise mother she learns to untie them from her apron strings and allow them the freedom to make their own mistakes. So mothering is a balancing act of giving her children freedom to learn for themselves. But not too much freedom so they will hurt themselves.

Likewise we all are the children of the Mother Goddess. She like a mortal Mother loves us all unconditionally. She doesn't want us to suffer yet also she wants to give us the freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. She has given us a very vital gift and that is freewill. So that she will not interfere with anything we wish to do. Because she loves us all unconditionally she will love us no matter what we do. This is echoed in the words of Jesus when nailed to the cross he said: "Forgive them for they no not what they do". In the eyes of the Great Mother we are all still children and the earth is our playground.

So if the Great Mother loves us all unconditionally why does she not interfere in the world? Why does she not come down to earth and guild us more directly to eliminate suffering from the world? The answer is in the Prodigal Son parable by Jesus. When children become teenagers they begin to rebel against their parents, they become "knowalls" and think they know better then what mother and father. And many of them leave their parents and go off on their own to live independent lives. This is what the whole of humanity has done, as we have a desire to be independent of our Mother Goddess. So we have turned our back on her to lead independent lives. Like a mortal parent she knows that she cannot interfere with this decision we have all made and has allowed us to go off to learn for ourselves. Yet also the story of the Prodigal Son also tells us that if we want to return to the Great Mother then we are all free to do so and we will be welcomed with open arms. So the question is, why are we not doing this?

The obvious answer would be pride. The teenage son or daughter doesn't want to go back to there parents and say: "I can't look after myself after all". But there is another reason for this, the way we see our creator has become extremely distorted. If we believe our creator is a angry and judgmental God or that God doesn't exist at all. Then we are not going to want to turn to someone who will condemn us or we think doesn't exist at all. So how did it come about that we have distorted the image we have of our creator?

If we are to believe what we are told about history: Then it seems that people in the past lived far more terrible lives than what we did. It seems that the further we go back in time the harder life was for all people. But is this true? We can certainly look back to say the Middle-ages as say for certain that life in those day was very much harder than it is today.

I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that life was far harder in the Medieval times than today. Yet would it also be true that if you go back further in time than the Middle-ages would life get progressively worse for people? That is a debatable point, because the further we go back in history the less we understand what is really going on. But logic tells us that if we adopt the model of gradual evolution where everything has slowly got better for all people then we will go back to a time that conditions were so hard for people that humanity couldn't possibly survive. So we have to revise this model and see that history is about a series of high and lows.

A low point would of been the Middle ages and if we look at these times people then believed in the angry and judgmental God far more than they do today. The belief permeated the whole of society where people were genuinely frighten of God. Which created a very negative point of view because every disaster and misfortune was seen as a judgment against people by a angry God. Though I am not a advocate of atheistism. I have to say that the rise of atheistism in the 19th century has created a far more humane society. It seems that the concept of no-God is far better for us all that the belief in a angry God.

Now the Ancient Greeks had a myth about a Golden Age that existed in their past. To quote: "The first age was an age of innocence and happiness. Truth and right prevailed, though not enforced by law, nor was there any magistrate to threaten or punish. The forest had not yet been robbed of its trees to furnish timbers for vessels, nor had men built fortifications around their towns. There were no such thing as swords, spears, or helmets. The earth brought forth all things necessary for man, without his labor in ploughing or sowing. Perpetual spring reigned, flower sprang up without seed, the rivers flowed with milk and wine, and yellow honey distilled from the oaks."

After that came the Silver age, where everything wasn't so good then the Brazen age and finally the Iron age, which is really our present age. The whole concept of this myth is that everything has become slowly worse and worse for human kind since the Golden Age. Which is at odds with modern thinking which assumes everything has become better and better for human kind since the stone-age.

Yet the myth of the Golden age doesn't only come from Ancient Greece. Probably the most ancient religion that survives today is Taoism in China. Again this religion talks about a Golden age in the past. As explained repetitively in the Tao-Te-Ching by Lao Tzu written at about the third century BC Although the Tao-Te-Ching is considered to be the Taoist "Bible". Taoism is far older than its author Lao Tzu. It seems that he was the archivist in the Imperial Court, and would of had access to very ancient documents that were later destroyed by later Emperors who wanted to destroy all ancient knowledge. So the Tao-Te-Ching is one of the few Chinese writings of that period to survive.

The concept of the Golden Age is also in the story of the Garden of Eden. When Adam and Eve sinned they were banished into the waste land and Adam had to work "by the sweat of his brow". Again in the few Aztec and Maya writing that have survived again there is a myth of a very ancient Golden Age ruled by a compassionate Mother Goddess. Which is shown in contrast to the later age of warfare and human sacrifice. In fact most ancient cultures of the world have some myth of a golden age ruled by the Mother Goddess.

Modern Scholars treat all these stories of a Golden age in the past as a unrealistic myth of the past. Yet modern archaeology has confirmed certain aspects of the Greek Golden Age to be true. Across the Aegean Sea to Anatolia in Turkey, inland from the ancient city of Troy. Archaeologists have discovered the most ancient city that they have ever discovered, called Catal Huyuk. Going back 9,000 years it is older than both the Ancient Sumerian and Egyptian Civilizations.

This Ancient city is very controversial for two reasons: It contains a large amount of Goddess imagery and archaeologists have failed to discover any city walls or any weapons of war. It seems that this city existed for thousands of years without any means to defend itself. Suggesting that this city existed in a time before war was invented! So according to the excavation of Catal Huyuk there was a peaceful age in the past where warfare and conflict was unknown. Another aspect of the Golden age was also true; Archaeologist have also discovered that in the Classic times of Ancient Greece the people began to fell trees in very large numbers. Causing erosion and the depletion of the soil.

So we can see there is some aspects of the Golden Age myth that has been proven as fact. It could be a age of innocence and happiness. Because as Catal-Huyuk has shown it was a age before the invention of warfare and the manufacture of arms. It was a age before the destruction of the forests not only in Ancient Greece but also in the middle East. Again Archaeologist have discovered the remains of ancient forests in Israel even as late as Roman times. Forests at one time covered the whole of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa where today there is only desert. I would doubt if archaeologists would discover rivers flowing with milk and wine. But it has to be remembered that Ancient Israel was known to be a land of "milk and honey" which means that in ancient times the soil was very fertile and crops could be grown without much effort. That is until the forests were decimated and the top soil was allowed to blow away. So there is evidence that the ancient Golden age did exist and there was a decline in the fortunes of human existence since the time of Catal Huyuk. But if we accept that then what was the reason for this decline?

If we accept that there was a Golden age then why was in so much better than way come after it? The Tao-Te-Ching gives many reason for this and why we declined from the Golden age.

Those of old who were competent
In ruling according to the Tao
Did not do it by enlightening the people
But by keeping the people unknowing.
The difficulty in leading the people
comes from their knowing too much.

Now this is a similar idea to the story of the Garden of Eden. Again Adam and Eve was forbidden to eat the fruit from "the tree of knowledge". In this story when they ate the fruit they realize they were naked. This suggests they had lost their innocents. Again this is in line with what the Ancient Greeks say about the Golden age in that the people of the Golden age were innocent.

So what is the problem with knowledge? There is nothing wrong with knowledge in itself but as the old saying goes; "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". When the people of the Golden age allowed themselves to be ruled and guided by the Mother Goddess through their instincts, then harmony was easy to achieve. Because all people were calling on the great wisdom of the Great Mother in everything they done. Yet then there come a desire for people to work things out for themselves. So people began to learn from experience and from this experience they gained knowledge. This allowed people to begin to become independent from the Great Mother and began to take more noticed of what they had learnt from there own experience and knowledge. Unfortunately they began to live their lives from their own experience and knowledge and not the wisdom of the Great Mother. So it is then no wonder that the fortunes of humanity began to decline. As again pointed out in the Tao-Te-Ching:

When a man is to take the world over and shape it
I see that he must be obliged to do it
For the world is a divine vessel:
It cannot be shaped;
He who shapes it damages it;
He who insist upon it loses it.

The Great Mother would see this decline but wouldn't do anything to stop it because she can see the desire of her children to learn to be independent from her. From what we learn from the Ancient Greeks and the Tao-Te-Ching it seems that the decline was very slow.

At first humankind listened to the voice of the Great Mother and also learnt through experience and knowledge. Yet it seems as time went on people trusted their own experience and knowledge more than the voice of the Mother Goddess. So why did we lose this contact to the degree we know longer know of her existence? A clue is this the Prodigal Son parable: When the son leaves his loving father he is soon robbed and cheated of his money and wealth by others. So who were these robbers? It seems they were and still are our rulers and priests who robbed us of the contact, and therefore the great wisdom and abundance of the Great Mother. To quote the Tao-Te-Ching again:

When the great Tao is lost, spring forth benevolence and righteousness
When wisdom and sagacity arise, there are great hypocrites.
When family relations are no longer harmonious, we have filial children and devoted parents.
When a nation is in confusion and disorder, patriots are recognized.
When Tao is, equilibrium is. When Tao is lost, out come all the differences of things.

As people began to learn through their personal experience they began to doubt the wisdom they received from the Mother Goddess. Simply because sometime the wisdom of the Great Mother is beyond out understanding and sometime doesn't make logical sense. Because of this doubt others realized they could use this doubt to receive for themselves power over others. In many stone-age tribes that still exist today there is always the shaman or witch-doctor. These are people who have, or suppose to have, a better contact with the spirit world, God or Goddess than the average person. Even if the shaman is completely honest the temptation to use his position as the spokesperson of the Great Mother for personal gain would of been very great. And off coarse those who where not honest abused there position of trust to further their own ends. So from the Shaman or witch-doctor grew a priesthood who gained power and wealth in their societies. Unfortunately the advice of this priesthood as it was for their own personal gain wouldn't be anywhere as good as the great wisdom of The Great Mother. So when they the people came to the priesthood complaining that the advice given wasn't correct. Then the priests where forced to blame the Great Mother. Which priest do even today when they say; "The ways of God are very mysterious", when confronted by a unanswerable question.

So the image of the Great Mother became tarnished. She didn't seem to have the same wisdom she had in the past. So people began to pay less attention to her words as interpreted by the priesthood.

He who knows does not speak;
He who speaks does not know.
He who is truthful is not Showy;
He who is showy is not truthful.
He who is virtuous does not dispute;
He who disputes is not virtuous;
He who is learned is not wise;
he who is wise is not learned.
Therefore the Sage does not display his own merits.

The first line of this chapter in the Tao-Te-Ching states: "He who knows does not speak." We have to ask why not? A clue to this reason can be seen in later lines: "He who is virtuous does not dispute; He who disputes is not virtuous". It seems that in the time of Lao-Tzu if a person who is still in contact with the Great Mother and voices her wisdom. He is likely to be attacked by those who claim to voice the wisdom of the Great Mother but only do it to gain personal power. In disputes the sage would be at a disadvantage. He or she can only give the wisdom of the Great Mother but may not be able to say why the people should follow this teaching. Or if he or she knows why the people should follow the ways of the Mother Goddess they may have difficulty in explaining it. Because it would be beyond the ability for the average person to understand.

So as suggested by the Tao-Te-Ching those who only wanted power for themselves where able to influence people far more than those who still had a true contact with The Great Mother. And the contact with the Mother Goddess was slowly broken and replaced by the knowledge of the priests and rulers. By becoming in the eyes of the general population the mouthpiece of the Mother Goddess. They began to give her a very bad name as they more and more used her as a scapegoat for their mistakes. So the people began to reject the Great Mother and other Goddesses and Gods were created out of the imagination of the priests. Many ancient civilizations began to worship a large number of deities and the priest of the different Gods and Goddesses competed with each other for power over the people.

The priest began to realize that a God who could frighten the people gave them far more power. So Gods like Jehovah, Zeus, Thor and Rama began to appear. These were thunder Gods who will punish with a bolt of lighting anyone they were displeased with. Spiritual teachers like Jesus and Buddha tried to counter this trend. Jesus put forward the idea of a loving Father God. While Buddha taught people how to contact the Great Mother through meditation. Yet these teachers became Gods themselves after they died, there teaching soon become distorted to suit the needs of power hungry priests.

So what has the Great Mother been doing as we collectively broken all contact off from her? It would but untrue to say the link has been totally cut off and where she could influence us for the better she did so. To the degree that we have moved from a low in the Middle-ages where people really believed that they were created by a uncaring, angry and judgmental God. To now where people don't believe in a God at all or they are starting to believe in the caring God as promoted by Jesus.

So what is the next step? What would happen to us all if we started to believe in the Great Mother who loves us all unconditionally and will gives us everything that will bring us joy and happiness? The problem that most people will have with this is that it sounds far too good to be true. But unfortunately because of this belief the Mother Goddess cannot give us what we want.

The Great Mother has given us all the power to create the life and world we want to create. And we create our personal life and collectively create our world by the way we think and feel. So if we believe in a utopia where everyone is happy is impossible, then that becomes true because that is the way we think. We have all become prisoners of our past and history. When we look back in our history all we read about is wars and conflict so we assume this way of behaving will continue because it is "human nature". Yet as we have said there is some proof from the excavation of Catal Huyuk that there was in pre-historic times a Golden age. So why can we not do the same today?

As I have previously pointed out the Great Mother has given us free will. But she has given us more than this she has given us god-like power to create what ever we want in our lives. Unfortunately we are still children. We have the power but do not yet have the knowledge and experience to use this power. It is like someone giving us a high-powered sports car without telling us how to drive it. So with experimenting we might learn how to start the engine. Then we then might try and drive it. But without the knowledge and experience of driving it we are more than likely to crash the car.

Before we are allowed to drive a car we are given instructions how to learn how to drive it. The same is true with life, the Great Mother is always there to help and guide us. Unfortunately by listening to political minded priests we have lost contact with the Mother Goddess. So She is now only a "small voice" which most of us choose to ignore. It has become very difficult for Her to contact us though the distortions of religious and atheists dogma, to the degree that priests have called the small voice within us the voice of the Devil or evil spirits.

We can only get into contact with the Great Mother by clearing away these distortions. This can only be done by affirming a few basic truths about the Mother Goddess. It was possible for the Prodigal Son to return to his loving father because he had the memory of what life was like before he went off on his own. We unfortunately do not have that memory. As far as we know in the whole of recorded history we have always lived a life on conflict and suffering. So it requires us to listen to the small voice of the Great Mother even though it seems to contradict everything we have been taught about our world, and know that a world of love and harmony is really possible. Then we have to affirm to ourselves a few basic truths about the Great Mother.

1. The Great Mother loves us all unconditionally, because we ALL are Her children. So in no way will She judge, condemn or punish us.

2. The world of the Great Mother is a world of Love and Harmony. The world of conflict, fear, hatred and chaos was created by us. Not because we are bad or evil but because we are children and as such, "we know not what we do".

3. The Great Mother is all powerful, because She is the One, She is everything there is. She has given us the gift of freewill and will never interfere is our lives. Therefore She will only help and guide us if we give Her permission to do this.

4. The Great Mother will always be there for us and give us what help we allow Her. Unfortunately if we believe in a judgmental avenging god or in no god at all, that is the reality we have created and She cannot go againest what we have chosen to believe.

So therefore if we can go throughout our live reminding ourselves the Great Mother is all Powerful because She is the One. That She loves us all unconditionally because we are Her children. That we in truth live in a caring world of love and harmony. Because this is the world created by the Great Mother. The world of fear and chaos then becomes an illusion created by us.

Then it can become far easier for the Great Mother to help and guide us. It is like tuning into a radio station. The radio station we receive in our normal daily gives us negative thoughts and feelings about ourselves and the world we live in. This is the radio station we all have collectively created together and has created the frequency that creates our collective reality. If on the other hand we make a conscious effort to tune in to the frequency of the Great Mother which is the frequency of unconditional love, harmony and compassion. Then we find we begin to tune into these thoughts and feelings and our lives begin to change for the better. If you find this difficult then simply keep repeat to yourself that; "The true reality of our life (my life) is the reality of love, compassionate and harmony." Or if you like; "We live in a abundant universe of love and harmony" and "I am loved, (we are loved) by the Great Mother unconditionally". Or any other words and feelings that support this theme. We then start to create in our lives a world of love and harmony because this is the real world created by Her.

This article was first published at. -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DivineGoddess

Did Women Once Rule The World?

In recent years archaeologists have increasingly found more and more evidence of the possibility of a Matriarchal age in the past. Yet we do not hear about this in either the mainstream media or in the alternative press. Yet if what is being discovered now is true, we will have to re-write ancient history and rethink what is the true nature of human beings. Because what archaeologists are now discovering suggests that in the stone age we were not the savage brutes as portrayed in academic speculation. But we were in fact peace loving people who worshipped a ancient deity called the Great Mother. Recent archaeological evidence shows that the history of war and violence only began long after civilization got started.

The concept that women once ruled the world in ancient times is nothing new. It got started by a scholar called J.J Bachofen1 in the 19th century. He brought together all the evidence of matriarchy in ancient times then available. He was strongly criticized for this by other scholars who dismissed and discredited his work. Yet in spite of this, his work was to inspire the scholars James Frazer to write his famous book, "The Golden Bough". It also influenced Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who publicly praised Bachofen's work. As well as the famous psychologist Carl Jung who developed from it the theory that the ancient Great Mother was a very important archetype in the collective unconscious. 2 In spite of the condemnation of Bachofen the controversy wouldn't go away. Other scholars in the early 20th century also wrote about matriarchy like Robert Briffault,3 Jane Harrison4 and Dr Margaret Murray.5 But this argument was kept very much within academic circles. Then in the 1940s the poet Robert Graves wrote his book, "The White Goddess" which was the first attempt to bring this argument to the general public, even though it was a very complex book. Then on the wave of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s feminist scholars like Merlin Stone6 and Barbara G. Walker7 also continued to dig deep into ancient history to find more evidence of matriarchy in ancient times.

After the second world war archaeologists started to make finds that was also supporting the idea that there was a matriarchal age in the past. This evidence was again dismissed by academics but feminist writers like Elizabeth Gould Davis8 who was brave enough to directly claim that women did once rule the world. And Riane Eisler9 who kept strictly to feminist dogma and claimed that in the matriarchal age the sexes were equal. But the biggest change in recent years is of archaeological evidence that supports the ancient Golden Age myth. That has been written about in ancient Greek Legend, by the Taoist Chinese, and even in the Bible in the story of the Garden of Eden which comes from a Mesopotamian Golden Age legend. In fact most ancient cultures all over the world have a Golden Age myth of some kind.

Up until recently modern academics have rejected these legends as pure myth. Not only do they sound too good to be true, but recorded history shows a different story. It seems that the further you go back in history the more brutal and violent, men seem to behave. For instance to see gladiators fighting to death as a sport like in the Roman games would be unacceptable in every society today. Though it has to be admitted we still see war, genocide and torture in our modern world. So it has been assumed by archaeologists and scholars that people in pre-historic times must of been even more brutal than people in historic times. The only findings that contradicted this was Palaeolithic cave art, found in France and Spain, which was so well executed that it undermined the belief that Stone Age people were ignorant brutes10. In fact Archaeologists at first refused to believe that these paintings could possibly made by Stone Age people, and it was only modern dating techniques that convinced them. Also the amount of feminine images found in both Stone-age and Neolithic sites showed that Stone age people may have other things on their mind other than violence. But academics dismissed these finds as being part of a fertility cult and never took them seriously. During the second half of the 20th century archaeologists dug more and more into Neolithic sites and too much feminine imagery was being found to be lightly dismissed. And they began to find evidence that turned the idea that we were brutal savages in pre-historic times, on its head.

In the 1960s a archaeologists called Mellaart lead a team to excavate a site in Anatolia in Turkey. This site turn out to be the oldest city ever discovered11. Called Catal Huyuk it goes back over 9,000 years. What was discovered goes against all assumptions archaeologist have about people living in Neolithic times. They couldn't find any fortifications to defend the city or any weapons of war. Neither could they find signs of violence committed on people buried in graves. It was also a city full of feminine imagery to the degree that Mellaart was forced to say that the people worshipped the Ancient Great Mother.

So unsettling was these discoveries that the site was closed down for thirty years and the academic world ignored the implications of this find. Because the prevailing view was that the first civilizations were created by warrior tribal leaders who conquered other tribes and then had to build fortifications and organize the people to defend himself. So to have the oldest city ever discovered that didn't have any sign of fortifications, weapons of war or signs of violence greatly contradicted this theory. As in many cases in science when new facts opposed a very popular and fashionable theory then it was the facts that are ignored until enough facts are produced to make the fashionable theory untenable. So most academics chose to ignore this find except one archaeologist, Mariji Gimbutas, who was brave enough to challenge the accepted wisdom of the academic world.

She was to say boldly:

"Archaeologists and historians have assumed that civilization implies a hierarchical political and religious organization, warfare, a class stratification, and a complex division of labour. This pattern is indeed
typical of androcratic (male dominated) societies such as Indo-European but does not apply to the gynocentric (mother/women-centred) cultures described in this book. The civilisation that flourished in Old Europe between 6500 and 3300 BC and in Crete until 1450 BC enjoyed a long period of uninterrupted peaceful living which produced artistic expression of graceful beauty and refinement, demonstrating a higher quality of life than many androcratic classed societies."12

The late Marija Gimbutas was digging in another Neolithic sites in Achilleion, Thessaly in Greece and also found finds, of feminine imagery and no sign of violence and warfare. Also in her books and scientific papers she highlight the Neolithic findings that archaeologists had made at Lepenski Vir and Vlasac in Northern Yugoslavia. As well as the Neolithic findings by Soviet scientists in Bulgaria, Romania, Moldavia, and the Western Ukraine. Western archaeologist had made similar finds in Crete, Cyprus, Thera, Sardinia, Sicliy and Malta. All showing peaceful societies that worshipped the Great Mother. Yet archaeologists chose to ignore these findings, because they contradicted the belief of the time that civilization was started by warrior leaders. It was only Gimbutas who was brave enough to take these finds seriously and she became a very controversial figure.

Her work was for a long time forgotten and dismissed. But in more recent times other archaeologists also made similar finds. In the excavation of Indus Valley civilization in Pakistan again archaeologists could find no signs violence or weapons of war13. The same is true of Caral in Peru the oldest city ever discovered in South America, going back to 5,000 years. Given the violent history of later South American civilizations with mass human sacrifice, archaeologists expected to find the same thing. But no matter how hard they looked they couldn't find any evidence of human sacrifice, warfare, fortifications or any other indication of violence. And they had to conclude that this civilization existed in peace for thousands of years. It seems that Caral wasn't just a isolated city, as archaeologists found trading good at this site from all over South America. Demonstrating it was the centre of a vast trading network that covered most of this continent. Which suggested that not only did Caral lived in peace, but this was true for the whole of South America at the time. 14

The overwhelming evidence of these finding have made more modern academics wonder if Mariji Gimutas might be right after all. Some archaeologists are now supporting her like Richard Rudgley in his book "Lost Civilizations Of The Stone Age", and his TV series "Secrets Of The Stone Age".

So what is the implication of these findings?

As Richard Rudgley points out 95% of existence as humans is in pre-historic times. Yet we know so little about this time, it is only from the tools, paintings and carvings found in excavations can we get understanding of what life must of been like then. All carved and painted images found of human beings found in the Stone-age are overwhelmingly images of women. What Marija Gimbutas shows is that most of these images celebrate the whole process of birth from the sex act to breast feeding. It seems in prehistoric times menstruation, the vagina, the sexual act, giving birth, and breast feeding was seen as something divine, holy and sacred. This is in contrast to historic times where menstruation became taboo and unclean in many societies. The sex act also become sinful and dirty. It was also claimed that children were born in sin because they were born of women, and even breast feeding become shameful, as even now many women are reluctant to breast feed in public.

This is supported by the findings of Gimbutas who showed that the downfall of many of the peaceful Goddess civilizations was caused by violent patriarchal tribes invading them from the north. So it suggests that it was the invention of war that ended the last Golden Age. Where the new rulers behaved like Mafia bosses in imposing a reign of terror on the people to control them, and started a protection racket that was in effect the first taxation. Making the rulers very wealthy and forcing poverty onto the people. Who now had to, not only to work to feed and shelter themselves, but they had to work to feed the new rulers and their armies, as well as build them palaces and fortifications, and make arms and luxury goods. This is a clear case where men like Adam had to work by the sweat of their brow. While the new rulers encouraged men to no longer respect women and make them their slaves.

This is clearly seen in the contrast between the findings of the Neolithic age where we see a predominance of feminine images, and no evidence of warfare and violence. With the later iron age were we find more than anything else images of wars, violence as well as the glorification of kings, rulers, conquest and wealth. Archaeologists in the iron age also find graves where people have clearly been put to death through violence. We also have the first myths of the hero who conquers other nations. As well as male gods who begins to lay down strict laws and punish those who dares to disobey them.

Now evidence of matriarchy doesn't only come from the past, the shocking fact is that the general public are completely unaware that there are many matriarchy communities that have survived up until the present day. The biggest is the The Minangkabau people in Western Sumatra and numbers about 4 million people and is the largest and most stable Matriarchal community in the world today15. In China there are also Matriarchal community16, 17. In India there is a region called Kerala18 which again is matriarchal and has a reputation of being a well run, stable and prosperous area. There is evidence of matriarchal communities that survived in Africa up until colonial times19. There are even American Indian tribes that are still Matriarchal20. I have been informed that there are over 150 matriarchal communities all over the world but you never hear about this in either the mainstream or alternative media.

So if we are looking for a conspiracy we have to wonder why all these facts have been kept concealed and covered up for so long. From the time when Bachofen first put forward the idea that there once was a matriarchal age in the past it seems that the establishment have worked very hard to conceal this fact. To the degree of destroying archaeological sites. In Malta there is a very large Neolithic Goddess temple. The first archaeology done on this temple was done by a Roman Catholic priest. His effort included rubbing off important and irreplaceable wall painting from the temple walls. Then digging up the temple floor and taken away all archaeological evidence, which has now mysteriously disappeared21. This behaviour is not unusual, when the Christian Church or the state of Israel finance archaeological excavations in the Israel what they find fits in with what is written in the Bible. But excavations carried out by universities who do not have any affiliation to the Christian Church or the state find something completely different. For instance in the homes of ordinary Jews of two thousand years ago and older they find statues of Goddesses. The evidence is that the ordinary people of Israel were still worshipping the Goddess Asherah up until the Roman occupation.

Suppression of evidence to do with matriarchy and Goddess worship goes back even further than this22. Dr Margaret Murray done research on the witch hunts in medieval Europe. What she discovered wasn't that the witch hunts were started by hysteria as commonly believed. But was a ruthless campaign by the Christian Church to destroy a Goddess religion that still existed among the peasant class. Going back even further when both the Christian Church and later on the Moslems became state religions, the first thing they done was to destroy as much as possible all ancient knowledge. As feminists scholars have pointed out there main targets have been Goddess Temples and female scholars of the time. It seems that from then on all evidence of a matriarchal age in the past has been suppressed or destroyed.

The reason for this is not hard to work out. If people in the last matriarchal age were worse off than people in historic times there wouldn't be a problem. Rulers in historic times could point to the fact that people are better off under their rule than people in the ancient past. But if the opposite is true then there is a real problem. If it become general knowledge that people in our matriarchal past were better off than people even today then that would become political dynamite. Because people then would ask the obvious question, "would we all be better off if we similar society as we had in Neolithic times?" That is to say a society that respected feminine values rather than masculine values23. This could create a world wide social revolution that would greatly undermine the power of our present ruling elite.

So the ruling elite does have a very good reason to suppress and destroy these facts. Graham Hancock recently has attempted to get archaeologists interested in the possibility that there is ancient cities under the sea that was flooded by the melting of the ice of the last ice age. And was greatly puzzled that these archaeologists showed no interest in this. But if the ruling elite are aware that more than likely these ancient cities were ruled by women they would have a very good reason to not want archaeologists poking about these sites. Because finding indisputable proof that women did once rule the world is political dynamite and could start and political revolution that would sweep away the power of our present ruling establishment.

End


References

1. Bachofen, J.J. Myth, Religion And Mother Right
2. Gabon, W. Elinor The Once And Future Goddess
3. Briffault, Robert The Mothers
4. Harrison, Jane Prolegomena To The Study Of Greek Religion
5. Murray, Dr Margaret The Witch-Cult In Western Europe
6. Stone, Merlin When God Was A Woman
7. Walker, Barbara G. The Women's Encyclopaedia Of Myths And Secrets
8. Davis, Elizabeth Gould The First Sex
9. Eisler, Riane The Chalice And The Blade
10. Rudgeley, Richard Lost Civilisations Of The Stone Age
11. Mellaart J. Catal Huyuk: A Neolithic Town In Anatolia
12. Gimbutas, Marija The Civilisation Of The Goddess
13. Great Civilisations, The Indus (TV program)
14. Horizon, The Lost Pyramids Of Caral (TV progam)
15. Sanday, Peggy Reeves Women At The Center: Life In A Modern Matriarchy
16. Abendroth, Heide Göttner The Mosuo as a Living Matriarchal Society
17. Cai Hua A Society Without Fathers Or Husbands
18. http://www.hinduismtoday.com/1996/2/#gen169
19. Meyerowitz, Eve The Akan Of Ghana. The Sacred State Of The Akan
20. Tile, Karin E. Kuna Crafts, Gender And The Global Economy
21. Hancock, Graham Underworld: Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age
22. http://www.suppressedhistories.net
23. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DivineGoddess