Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    FRom the male perspective in a matriarchical society, ponder the life
    of Gilgamesh.  Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.  Are you 
    familiar with this tale?
    
    BTW, perhaps you are very much made in the "image" - Scripture
    translates as "made in our images" rather than "made in His image."
    Hmmmm.  Wonder whom God was referring to.  Also, go back to the roots
    of "Adam" and "Eve" which translates to "adam" and "adamah" where
    "adamah" is "of the same substance", that substance being "adam" or
    soil, dust.  Also, "of dust we were ... to dust we shall return."
    
    	Regards,
    
    	Ron
    

    Hi Kb,
    
    Hadn't really pondered this question in depth till your note, but I
    have over the last several months (or longer) thought that the future
    society would be androgynous.  A civilization where a person would love
    another person for just 'being', where gender would not be the
    criteria.  Your note calls me to ask myself how did I get to this point
    where I truly believe that is the future.  I guess this theory took
    seed when I came to believe that God was androgynous and as I believed
    this I came to experience people in my life who were androgynous by
    nature.  By this I mean, that have their anima/animus in balance within
    and thus are able to project that in their personna.  I wonder how many
    more androgynous people there would be if souls were allowed to express
    their individuality from birth without being culturally conditioned into
    being who others expect them to be.  I suspect Jesus was such a person.
    
    Not sure I'm explaining this clearly, but since we've had discussions
    along this line, Kb, I think you will understand what I mean.  Just
    some thoughts...
    
    Roey
    

Note 427.0

>    	Is a peaceful egalitarian society possible if that society 
>    	perceives and worships a deity as a specific sex and gender?

I tend to doubt that it is possible.  The perceived sex and gender of
the deity is but a reflection of the dominant sex and gender within society.

>    As archaeological evidence indicates, these matriarchal societies 
>    were very peaceful, agriculturally-based, artistically fruitful and 
>    generally very sophisticated for their time.  

This surprises me somewhat.  According to a sociology course I took awhile
back, agrarian societies tend to be hierarchical, rather than egalitarian.
Of course, there are probably lots of exceptions.

Peace,
Richard

    
    I feel that any society that focuses on one end of the masculine/
    feminine polarity is out of balance.  Information that I have read
    from some metaphysical sources indicates that during humanities
    time on Earth, this polarity has never been in balance.  We need
    both to be honored and accepted in order to be balanced in the
    heart.
    
    Carole

    What direction does the influence extend between a culture and its
    prevailing myths?  Is the influence mutual, or does one have a primary
    influence over the other?

    For example, does a misogynist culture naturally develop a religion
    with a male God?  Or does the image of a male God infect the culture
    with misogyny?  Or does it work both ways?

    Certainly, even in our modern secular society, we still have our
    prevailing cultural myths--myths about materialism and science, for
    example.  These myths about scientific materialism often dismiss
    religion as irrelevant, and as such they can have unfortunate cultural
    consequences.

    I agree that we need to balance our male and female conceptions of the
    divine.  That can be difficult, of course, because it is a natural
    tendency to anthropomorphize and to relate to the Ultimate in terms
    that we can understand--and what we can relate to is people being
    either male or female.  God, unfortunately, is a mystery that escapes
    our understanding, and the best we can do is conceptualize God
    according to an accessible paradigm.  Myths are valuable in that sense, 
    but they can also hinder us when they box us into a view of God that
    excludes some people.  What is the answer?  Should we focus on
    incorporating multiple myths into our understanding of God?

    -- Mike

    
    RE: .5 Mike
    
    >Should we focus on
    >incorporating multiple myths into our understanding of God?

    
    Yes, I think this is important as each is speaking what has been
    revealed to them about the nature of God and our own natures as well.
    We can take the best of these cultural myths, that which supports all
    people from a basis of love.
    
    Carole

    
   Carole,

   RE: .4

   That is the statement with the clearest vision I have heard for a
   while.  Yes, polarity is a part of the human condition but needn't be
   part of societies convention.  Every instance of that polarity
   diminishes society.

   Allison

    Ron .1,
    
    No, I'm not familiar with the tale of Gilgamesh.  What does it say to
    you regarding this topic?
    
    I also find the translation of the scriptural phrase "made in our
    images" *very* interesting.  I've not heard this before.        ^^^
    Can you elaborate a little further?  Where did you find this translation?
    
    Roey .2,
    
    Yes, we have had the conversation before, haven't we? :-)  I also feel
    that an androgynous perspective will come more into the fore in the
    future.  I think it will happen as our understanding of human behavior
    progresses to realize that we are composed of masculine and feminine
    "energies."  And as we work to bring these energies more in balance, 
    as Carole noted, I wonder if our images of the Divine will evolve into 
    something more androgynous.    
    
    I'm also reminded how many indigenous cultures viewed homosexuals: 
    They were oftentimes held in very high esteem and appointed as spiritual
    counselors, because their homosexuality was viewed as embodying the
    androgynous nature of the Divine. 
    
    Karen

    
    RE: androgyny
    
    Hmmmm....there is something about this that is not feeling quite
    right.  I'll have to ponder on it a bit before I can put it into
    words though.
    
    Carole

   Karen,

   It is true that many indigenous cultures did recognize differening
   roles but it tended to be along lines of transgender behavour.  
   Geronimo was such a person within his nation, he was regarded as 
   a very powerful healer.

   Gilgamesh, I'm curious, or worse have forgotten.  What's the story?

   Allison

    I'll dig up some info on Gilgamesh over the w/e.
    
    	Regards,
    
    	Ron
    

    Richard .3,
    
    > According to a sociology course I took awhile back, agrarian
    > societies tend to be hierarchical, rather than egalitarian.  
    > Of course, there are probably lots of exceptions.
    
    Hmm, you've got me wondering Richard:  are the terms hierarchical and
    egalitarian mutually exclusive?
    
    What I'm pondering is the thought that some form of hierarchical
    structure is probably necessary in any society for it to function in an 
    orderly way.  Is this true, do you think?   If it is, does this
    imply that a society cannot be egalitarian as well?  I don't think so,
    but I'm not sure.
    
    
    Carole .9,
    
    If any of your discomfort around the term androgyny has to do with the
    implication of "genderless" human beings, you're not alone.  There's a
    lot of debate around just what the term androgynous is meant to
    connote.  Some feel it implies striving toward a "genderless" society; 
    others feel it is a society that recognizes the need to honor and balance 
    the masculine/feminine polarity in individuals and the society at large.
    
    Karen

    Allison,
    
    I need to claim my ignorance here.  I do not know what the differences
    are between homosexual and transgender behavior.  Can you help me?
    
    Thanks very much,
    Karen           

   Karen,

   RE: .13

   I'll do my best.

   Homosexual:  Emotional and/or physical love for the same sex partner.
   Homosexual persons live and feel they are of their birth sex.  The
   key here is that most homosexual people are content to be male or 
   female.

   Transgender(ed): Someone who behaves or adopts the roles of the 
   sex opposite their birth sex.  The key here is that transgendered
   people are not content with their birth sex.  This does not state
   sexual preference of the transgendered person as that is a seperate
   aspect of their personality.

   Androgyny: comes from the Greek(I could be wrong and it may be latin).
   Andro, male or of men. Gyn-, female or of women.  It is not a 
   sexless/genderless condition but rather a condition where both are
   present.  Our society seems to consider people who are androgynous
   as neither gender rather than both for some reason.

   Allison

Note 427.12

>    Hmm, you've got me wondering Richard:  are the terms hierarchical and
>    egalitarian mutually exclusive?

I suspect that a social system could exist with some compromise of the two,
and in fact, probably most do to some extent.

The question is ultimately a matter of power and its use.  I tend to see
the hierarchical as a vertical power structure and the egalitarian as
a more lateral or horizonal power structure.

It is interesting to note that the Greek word we translate as meaning
"church" also means "a gathering of equals."  (What a wonderfully subversive
idea.)  On the other hand, someone once said that the most perfect form of
government is a kind monarch.

Peace,
Richard

    in regards to the discussion about androgyny (which is Greek for 
    Man/Woman) and homosexuality and transgender roles...
    
    i think it's important when attempting to understand other cultures
    (in this case i think people are refering to Native American peoples)
    to keep in mind that concepts such as homosexuality are Western
    and also of fairly recent times. this is even more true of the
    idea of transgender roles which may indeed have historical antecedents
    
    perhaps it's because i see myself as an androgyne but i don't
    think of androgynous people as genderless. although it was in another
    note string, i believe that androgynes have different sorts of souls
    from people who are only of one gender.
    
    peter

    Allison,
    
    Thanks very much for clarifying homosexual and transgender attributes.  
    The literature I've read and the discussions I've heard have not made 
    that fine a distinction.  It find it very helpful to know.  As Peter
    mentioned, I've seen this special appreciation for the androgynous 
    quality of people reflected more in Native American cultures, though
    it may also be in others as well.
    
    Karen                                                         

    Hi Peter,
    
<<    perhaps it's because i see myself as an androgyne but i don't
    think of androgynous people as genderless. although it was in another
    note string, i believe that androgynes have different sorts of souls
    from people who are only of one gender.
    
    I agree very much Peter.  When I mentioned angrogynous people I know in
    .2, I certainly never thought of them as genderless.  I also think the
    androgynes I've met have/are special beings - the adjectives wise, ancient,
    evolved, loving come to mind when I think of these souls.
    
    In what way are they different to you?   Can you expand on that?
    
    Ro